I wonder if my daughter would like to go to Camp Quest

They've got this page, titled "Affirmations of Humanism" on their website. Let me go through and see what I think of it:

A Statement of Principles

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

So far so good.

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

Yup.

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

"Open and pluralistic society" great; I'm cool with that. The last part, though...isn't that why we're fighting in Iraq? Society needs more than just the mechanism of voting.

We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

Good - disarming the churches has done wonders for world peace.

We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

I'm hot for negotiation; kinda cool for compromise. "Live and let live" is about as compromise-y as I think anybody needs to be.

We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

Justice is awesome, fairness is impossible...well, really both are impossible on a collective scale. Groups of people do a crappy job of being just and fair to each other. I'm down with eliminating discrimination and intolerance, but it depends on how you plan to do it.

We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

Of course, but how?

We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

Excellent.

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

Okey-dokey. Once again, the question is, "how?"

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

Perfect. Absolutely!

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

Fantastic!

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

We're talkin' about a summer camp for kids, right?

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility.

No probs with 80% of those. Got a problem with altruism - it's kind of a rickety flyer.

Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

All right.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

Yup! Me too.

We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

Well, ...good.

We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

Awesome!

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

Yep.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

Anybody got a "theology of despair" or an "ideology of violence?"

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

That all sounds good, though I think they said it already.

Here's a thought for the holiday

Why does this make me think of that guy who ran for office in Iowa a while back? Trapp-something...

El Neil:

These were the Eisenhower years, I confess, and even as a fairly naive youngster, I had an intuitive sense that “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe when the legislature’s in session,” and that a “do-nothing congress” is a good thing. Also, it occurred to me that, after almost two centuries, the Powers That Be ought to have passed more than enough laws by now. At that point, you understand, I’d spent my entire life — exactly like any other little kid — being told what to do and what not to do. It seemed to me there was enough of that crap already going around to last us for at least a hundred years.

If you need more inflammatory rhetoric ('more' as in both more of it and more inflammatory), that's over here in the rest of the article "Had Enough Yet?".

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.

I found out today that a guy I used to work with

died in a car crash. The funeral was tonight.

The reason we were no longer working together was actually a fairly strong reason not to go, though it had nothing to do with how he and I had gotten along. I decided that, since I had liked and admired him I had to go.

The service was beautiful, though very modern. They called it a celebration of his life and they did it well. The church band played brilliantly executed Christian rock songs and the pastor preached a moving sermon based on Isaiah 61, of all things. He explained how, in the verse which says, "I will give you beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, a garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness" the words for "ashes" and "beauty" in Hebrew are nearly the same three letter word with the second and third letters transposed, so we could get a sense of how rhetorically powerful that must have been for the hearers of Isaiah's prophecy. Particularly since, when the Israelites mourned, they threw ashes on their heads and the word for "beauty" more literally means 'a beautiful turban' or other head covering, such as a crown.

All the eulogists spoke about how much he had grown since I last saw him... which made me very sad that I hadn't been there for that. They told stories showing how he'd gained great self-esteem from helping others in the church's ministries.

It was all deeply moving, and, as you may imagine, troubling to me.

I replaced the screen door on the back porch today

We've been making do with an old, bare aluminum thing that I dug out of the neighbor's garbage. It was the right width but the wrong height, so I had to go buy a metal cutting disk for my circular saw and adjust it. But it's been going to hell for the last couple years, since you-know-who couldn't get it open one day and kicked the hell out of it. Then the daughter followed that example after I fixed it that time. Just so you know, I never did get the lock to work right. I could get it open... but I have seventeen and a half inch biceps.

Anyway, Menard's had a door that sounded good to the shopper-lady on sale for $99. Naturally, they were out by the time we got there, so we offered to take the floor model off their hands. Since it didn't have any hinges or the latch and they considered it a little dinged up, they gave it to us for fifteen bucks. The missing hardware was about another fifteen.

Well, this one is the right height for the doorway, but it's two inches wider. So I had to scab a new frame on top of the old one. I got the happy child to help me prime it. We were going to paint it together too, but as we were getting all ready to do it, I found out I'd grabbed a can of red off the shelf, instead of white. Boy, did I wish I could think of a way to make that work. But I couldn't, so I just nailed it on, hung the door and we'll paint it later.

I'd show you a picture, but the new door makes the rest of the porch look crappier. So now I'll have to buy enough paint to do the whole thing.

See: the benefits of bitching about your wife. [I won't talk about the little scene we had this morning. Really it was over too fast to make much of a story, but I won.] It loosens up the blockage so you can get things done.

Tipping my hand

His basic point in the title is absolutely true. I gave up atheism before because...when you proclaim yourself an atheist, you suddenly discover that all those people you thought were godless heathens before turn out to be devout Christians, who will dismiss everything you say thereafter. It was too lonely for me.

Maybe I'll get away with this if I just put filler in the title.

It probably shouldn't be too entertaining filler, though.

Here's my question: how do I stop my wife from being a screechy, bullying, nagging nutjob shrew? See, I figure the problem is that there is no God.

When I asked my mother about it, damn near 20 years ago, she said, "Well, she's a teacher and she's had a hard day..."

Bullshit! Mom, you didn't behave that way. What the f*** position do you expect me to occupy in this world?! Well, whatever it was, I sure as f*** haven't! Unless you expected me to SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!!

There. That's what my mother did to me. And, by the way, nobody's asked her for any advice since, I'll tell you that. When it was offered it's been ignored.


Pretty G--D--- funny that one of the strongest fundamentalists Christians I ever met (that's Mom) didn't tell me that I'm the man of my house and I've got to lay down the law! It wouldn't have worked, but that's what the Bible says.

More importantly, let me post this

from Alice Miller (I'm going to just start in the middle. You can get the context by reading the whole thing):

The tormenting feelings of guilt triggered by this failure are unrelenting and implacable. What have I done wrong? These people ask themselves. Why have I failed to free my parents from their misery? I try the best I can. And it's the same with my therapists. They tell me to enjoy the good things in life, but I can't, and that makes me feel guilty too. They tell me to grow up, to stop seeing myself as a victim; my childhood is a thing of the past, I should turn over a new leaf and stop agonizing. They tell me not to put the blame on others; otherwise my hatred will kill me. I should forgive and forget, and live in the present; otherwise I'll turn into a "borderline patient," whatever that is. But how can I do that? Of course I don't want to put the blame on my parents, I love them, and I owe my life to them. They had trouble enough with me. But how can I banish my guilt feelings? They get even more overpowering when I hit my children. It's awful, but I can't stop doing it, it's driving me to despair. I hate myself for this compulsive violence; I disgust myself when I fly into an uncontrollable rage. What can I do to stop it? Why must I hate myself all the time and feel guilty? Why were all those therapists unable to help me? For years I've been trying to follow their advice, but I still can't manage to dispel my feelings of guilt and love myself as I should.

Let me quote my answer to a letter that contained all these elements:

"In your first letter you said you had never been cruelly treated as a child. In this one you tell me that when you were young you were cruel to your dog because you were a naughty child. Who taught you to see things that way? The point is that no single child anywhere on earth will be cruel to his/her dog without having been severely maltreated. But there are a whole lot of people who see themselves as you do and whose guilt feelings drive them to despair. Their sole concern is not to see their parents' guilt because they fear the punishment they would incur for putting the blame where it belongs. If my books have not helped you to understand this, there is nothing more I can do for you. You can only help yourself by no longer protecting your parents from your own justified feelings. Then you will be free of the compulsive urge to imitate them by hating yourself, blaming yourself, and describing yourself as a monster."

I was spared a lot of trouble by being the fifth of five kids, all born in the space of 4 and a half years. I learned how to get along with my parents by watching the troubles my older siblings got into. Out of ignorance, not evil. How can a kid see an unwritten rule?

What evidence do we have for God again?

Or gods, spirits, angels, demons... Sprites, pixies, nixies, elves, brownies, fairies, UFOs... Leprechauns...

I dunno, maybe it's a little inflamatory

to say, as Jim Davidson does,

Obama also took huge contributions from the defense contractors, or baby killer companies as I prefer to call them. Of course GE, a baby killer company, has NBC networks (which it owns) play cuddly with Obama and his family. Of course Westinghouse, a baby killer company, which owns CBS, has nothing but bubbly kindness for Obama. They want to continue to build bombs to be exploded over foreign cities to slaughter children, because that is how these evil men and women get money for their "work."

Working evil pays well, that's why there is so much of it.

Obama is a mass murdering thug. He has slaughtered thousands of women and children, non-combatants, enemy troops, and American soldiers in his time in office, and he loves it. He relishes every death and wants more. He wants to paint his face with blood the way Stephen Colbert painted his face with gold on a recent episode. Obama loves the taste and smell of blood, which is why he supports torture, which is why he loves the military for torturing its captives to death.

Who the h--l is Stephen Colbert? Am I out of touch with popular culture? Son of a b___h.

I ran the TC 1 Mile last night.

Instead of going to my meeting, I might add.

My lungs are feeling a bit raw this morning. I'm coughing a lot, which scares the hell out of everyone I meet. I wasn't able to train for the run, because I've been on the Shigella Diet for the past week. Lost seven pounds! [Yay! icon]

Hey, if people get away with calling that "stomach flu" I can call it The Shigella Diet. I doubt it was Shigella. More likely Salmonella.

I ran it in 8:41. Eh. It'd be nice, some time, to be able to run a race that I don't have to make excuses for.

I've developed a fascination with Mark Skousen

and his wife Joanne. He's Cleon Skousen's nephew.

Mark said this, back in '91:

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "Taxation is the price we pay for civilization." But isn't the opposite really the case? Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success.

Let's dump that "we" business. Every time you use force, you raise everybody's taxes. And even parents, when they use force, create children who will use and justify the use of force (and/or fraud).

I'm working on that.

Actually, what I came here to say was: the Skousen's casually mention, here and there, the fact that they teach a class on entrepreneurship at Sing Sing prison that has been extremely successful in reducing recidivism rates. Somebody's gotta do a movie on that! Molyneux? Masterson?

It kind of seems the Skousens aren't interested, so maybe it's up to an investigative journalist. Stossel?

I think I can work with this

Who knows?

I'd like to get my HaloScan comments back. I really like the sidebar widget. It looks like I can...uh...

Sorry, several thoughts just crashed together in my brain. No survivors.

From today's FEE In Brief

Unlike Chrysler’s, Banks’ Bondholders to Get Government Protection

“There will be one sure group of winners in the aftermath of the government’s ’stress testing’ of 19 major U.S. banks: The investors who own the banks’ bonds. That fact won’t be lost on Chrysler’s dissident debtholders — the ones who balked at the Obama administration’s restructuring offer for the company last week, only to be labeled as villains. Debt holders of the 19 banks already have been reassured that the administration won’t allow the institutions to fail. If the banks need more capital, and private investors won’t provide it, the government will.” (Los Angeles Times, Thursday)

Governmment discretion is poison to an economy.

FEE Timely Classic
“Rent-Seeking: A Primer” by Sanford Ikeda

Mussolini and his American cousins, the Progressives, liked to call it Corporatism.

Looks like I need to find the code for my header

and move it over to Blogger. I'm sure I have it saved on a CD around here somewhere.

Then I've gotta figure out how to do that...move it over, I mean.

My buddy Sean was hosting it... he probably got a new server and erased that file accidentally. Notice I'm not calling him Smichael.

It may be that I wouldn't like everything

Andrew Bacevich has to say, but I agree with everything he says here. I would add Lenin and Stalin to his list of people to thank for the end of the Cold War and recommend that he read Mises' Socialism.

Other refinements

The biker chick: she looks perfect when she's out on wall - just a cute young underclassman. Her pink top and pants turn bikerish when we're in the former bathroom together, and she gets rougher and tougher looking the closer together we get - never to the point of revulsion, she's still good-looking, but tough. I suppose I should mention that, like the later scene in reverse, when I found we didn't need coverings, we didn't have them. I speak this way because there are others in the room (now, while I'm typing) and I don't want any words jumping off the screen at them.

The coverings returned when others entered the area. The longing to get back to this occurred in the transitions between scenes, when I was doing the "task" of each scene I was concentrating on that. Did I mention that the area emptied whenever I was involved in a task. It's like the appearance of others was the signal to move on. They'd get me started on some task, clear out and come back when it was time to go somewhere else.

Unfinished Dream

I'm walking along, apparently in Switzerland and/or France, lots of modern buildings around. I enter a doork, at my old college, UM-Duluth - actually, I walk up to the door, the one on the end of Griggs Hall. There is a cute blond girl sitting on a retaining wall by the door. She follows me in. She's kind of a Euro-biker chick, medium tall, kind of tough looking. We end up in a dingy, dirty former bathroom with all the fixtures removed. "Something good" is about to happen, but other people come in and we leave. We're not scared, we just leave.

Wanting to get back to this scene permeates the rest of the dream.

Then I'm walking down a residential street; I go into this picnic shelter (big square tent-type thing in somebody's yard) where my brother and sisters are preparing to spend the night. There are a lot of people coming and going, siblings, cousins, my wife and kids. Whenever I look at somebody they've been replaced by somebody else. This is also a constant theme throughout the dream.

The tent has obviously been there a while, the floor is dirt, and there are sleeping pallets around the edges, the front is folded up and the side farthest from the street is apparently open, people keep coming and going that way. There's a sort of room in the back where there are bunks. A small opening in the back wall leads in there. As younger kids we visited some cousins who had a club house like that. I hesitate to say it, but I think it was a converted pig shed or chicken coop. It didn't stink at all.

There was a square box in the middle with juice and something to eat on it. There are a bunch of those bugs that you see when you pick up a board that's been on the ground too long, clustered on the lower left corner of the box I see sitting down to eat on the entrance side. And, of course, there are more as I peel up the loose ply to look at this. They seem to be contending for something sticky on the middle of that side with a mass of ants who are swarming up from the bottom.

At first I want to just let them kill each other, but then I decide to speed up the process by squishing them with the loose ply, except that doesn't get them all and I use a napkin and my bare fingers to squish the rest. The ants are easy to kill but the other bugs are bigger and harder shelled.

When I quit, I know they'll be back...or, rather, there'll be more to take their place.

I get up to go wash my hands, walking behind the tent into somebody else's somewhat unkempt yard, with lots of trees and bushes, where I'm attacked by a vine with a leafy end. The vine is a parasite growing out of a tall cedar, like the ones that grew around our yard at the "old house," from the crotch of the first branch which rises out to the left from eye level down to the ground and out about six feet. The vine acts a lot like any one of the Schnauzers we went to see Sunday afternoon, though I interpreted their actions as playful and affectionate, whereas the vine was protecting itself and its territory; whenever you came near it, it would "attack," though, other than startling the hell out of me the first time, and unnervingly jumping right up into my face a couple of times, it had no way to harm anyone.

By the way, the word "crotch" is just used as a descriptor here. There was nothing about the tree that suggested sexuality in any way. Although...

Someone was standing in my way as I tried to get out of reach of the thing - I would have had to do something rude to get past him (or her - it seemed to alternate between my wife, my older stepson and my cousin Tim, all of whom are well-known [by me] to do such things). S/he wanted to converse a bit about this oddity, but then I picked up a stick and started destroying it. I wished (non-verbally) that I had a better too for the job, and the stick turned into this steel bar I have in my garage. I've toyed with the notion of pounding that par into a sword, and, for a moment or two, when this challenge was resembling a battle, the bar was a sword.

I felt a bit concerned about how the heck I was supposed to snuff out this thing's consciousness or whatever. Was it at the end cluster of leaves or what? Anyway, striking it there seemed to quiet it enough that I could hold it and shred it with the bar. When I had shredded the vine back to about two feet up the trunk and I was thinking about putting the bar away, I think it turned back into a stick and I just dropped it and went on. I was a bit worried that the vine would grow back leaving that much, but I wasn't prepared to get that picky about somebody else's problem.

More later.
____________
Sorry about that. I forgot I had to take the older girl to dance class.

Anyway...

I walked up to the stoop of a long, one-story house with light gray asphalt siding - very run down. You see a lot of houses like it in Oklahoma, where I've spent a lot of time. The stoop has a gable over it with pillars, but it's just a stoop. I go into a living room with polished, brown, stone tiles and sort of a sidewalk running from the door to the kitchen. After the fact, it reminds me of my aunt's place that she rented after divorcing my uncle. Her son, my cousin Tim, invited me to stay there for a couple days when he got out of the army and I was coming back from a summer of working in the oil fields of West Texas between my Junior and Senior years in college.

There was a little blond kid, about 2 or 3 playing on the couch there. I thought somebody should be watching him, so I kind of stood there until he went to sleep on the floor. I was tired, so I lay down on the sidewalk-y part of the floor with my head next to his feet. I guess it was night. Oh, yeah! It got dark while I was killing the weed. People, of course, were wandering in and out all night - relatives and their friends. They were quiet, but...

The kid got up and left in the morning. I looked where his feet had been. There were a bunch of eighth-inch long, squiggly, brown worms there. I got up and checked to see if I had any on me. Of course. So I brushed off the ones on my clothes, my arms and my face... I could feel them in my hair and inside my clothes... I don't think I had a beard. I was picking them out of the hairs on my arms and squishing them with my fingers as I walked down toward the river (river?) to see if Mom or somebody knew what to do about this. (Mom's a nurse.) My sister met me and was leading me there when the alarm went off.

So,...basically a bunch of shit happened to me and I either wasn't able to complete anything I started or complete it to my own satisfaction. Lotta bugs, lotta relatives, lotta walking. Any guesses what it all means?

Later thought: The path Lisa was leading me down was very light and sandy, well-traveled - like the path to the Johnny T. bluff in Tenkiller State Park. It went through the woods just like that.

Every time clue I see in the dream points to things I did in my 20s. I also don't remember actually walking through a door or even looking at a door. The street in the residential neighborhood was curvy, not straight. I could never see very far ahead.

I take all this to mean that I am what and where I am due to a complete lack of long-range planning. It has all led to a frustrating existence. I do work that plunks itself down right in front of me, but otherwise, it ain't my problem.

My unconscious mind is telling me exactly the same thing my conscious mind is. Thanks for the freakin' help, pal.

Ooh, that's - that frustration - is a bug that needs squishing. Well, let's see. Are there any signs of something I'm passionate about here? Cute blond biker chicks, of course. Any way to make a living out of that passion? I mean, legally?

I have to do an

Individual Development Plan at work. It's driving me nuts. I decided it'd be easier - and maybe would unfreeze my brain blockage - to do my Fourth Step inventory. Right at the moment I'm blocked on actually writing something down about a harm I did to someone, so I'll just blog instead.

I don't think I'm going to get to run the TCM this year. Money's tight. But I'm thinking, maybe I'll volunteer for the race. You know, pass out water or whatever. I'm running now, so I think I'll train for the distance and run it the day before.

Anybody want to run with me?

Since we were talking about drug gangs

I thought it would be good to bring in what the philosopher I'm studying now has to say (beginning at the bottom of page 110):

It is very hard to understand the logic and intelligence of the argument that, in order to protect us from a group that might overpower us, we should support a group that already has overpowered us. It is similar to the statist argument about private monopolies – that citizens should create a governmental monopoly because they are afraid of private monopolies. It does not take keen vision to see through such nonsense.

What is the evidence for the view that decentralized and competing powers promotes peace? In other words, are there any facts that we can draw on to support the idea that a balance of power is the only chance that the individual has for freedom?

Organized crime does not provide many good examples, since gangs so regularly corrupt, manipulate and use the power of the government police to enforce their rule, and so such gangs cannot be said to be operating in a state of nature. Also, criminal gangs profit enormously by supplying legally-banned substances or services, and so also flourish largely due to state policies.

A more useful example is the fact that no leader has ever declared war on another leader who possesses nuclear weapons. In the past, when leaders felt themselves immune from personal retaliation, they were more than willing to kill off their own populations by waging war. Now that they are themselves subject to annihilation, they are only willing to attack countries that cannot fight back.

This is an instructive lesson on why such men require disarmed and dependent populations – and a good example of how the fear of reprisal inherent in a balanced system of decentralized and competing powers is the only proven method of securing and maintaining personal liberty.

Fleeing from imaginary devils into the protective prisons of governments only ensures the destruction of the very liberties that make life worth living.

On the emphases, the italics are his, the bold is mine and not his. My emphasis, not my thought.

MAD is a personal philosophy. Take it personally.

And a little Fred:

the WOD is a fraud. In America the drug racket is a mildly disreputable business, tightly integrated into the economy, running smoothly, employing countless federal cops, prison guards, ineffectual rehab centers and equally ineffectual psychotherapists, and providing bribes to officials and huge deposits of laundered money to banks. Narcos in the US do not engage in pitched battles with the army because they have no reason to. The government barely inconveniences them.

So why should Mexico fight this war for Washington?

In a column, Pat Buchanan addresses the violence in Mexico, and asks:
“Which is the greater evil? Legalized narcotics for America's young or a failed state of 110,000 million on our southern border? Some choice. Some country we've become.”

Some country indeed, on many grounds. And the WOD might be a good idea if it did anything beyond keeping the price of drugs up. But it doesn’t. I suggest two things to Pat:
First, Mexico suffers narco-violence only because Washington expects Mexico to do what Washington won’t. Failed state? Take away the narco wars and Mexico is a reasonably successful upper-third-world nation. If it fails, it will be because we pushed it into failure.

Second, America’s young already have almost unlimited access to drugs. Many students experiment with them. Few become addicts. Why? Because they don’t want to. How is that for simple?

I tried pot, hash, 'shrooms and coke. I got addicted to cheap, strong, legal beer and chewing tobacco. The combination gives the buzz I like, which includes the taste. If you take vitamin E, you don't have to worry much about hangovers.

I say I'm an addict because I can't stop once I start. There is no such thing as moderate use, I either do none or I drink until I pass out. As near as I can tell, that lack of ability to moderate one's consumption of intoxicants isn't caused by the consumption of the substance, but by a psychological reaction/response to the buzz. That's why treatment is mostly about imbibing right ideas, not drugs.

The problem with the US is that we're imbibing too many bad ideas...about morality, psychology, politics, religion, philosophy... Am I missing anything?

Amen

There is an authentic and stark difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. Isolationism as a political philosophy or political strategy is not only impractical but probably suicidal. In a global economy, no industrialized nation can successfully sustain itself on the resources that it controls. Isolationism is a political philosophy that discourages relations with other countries. Alternatively, non-interventionism maintains that foreign relations should be encouraged, but that nations should not become so involved with each other’s affairs that they become entangled with each other. Non-interventionists assert that intervention into the affairs of counterpart nations all too often results in unintended deleterious consequences and blowback, such as the U.S. learned when it intervened in the Middle East.

Non-Interventionism is Not Isolationism
by Rich Rubino, April 17, 2009

Never acknowledge or try to repair a mistake. That's our policy.

The Tax Code delenda est

The wife handed me the tax forms last night, all filled out, and wanted me to e-file them. So, I'm going through them line by line and I discover several things she missed - she assumed she should write down one number in one place instead of going through the worksheet and finding out that the number you get to write down on the main form is $2000 less... I ended up reading that whole ugly, boring booklet cover to cover, plus the TOS for the e-filing company.

So, basically, I ended up going to bed at 2:30 AM, p***ed off at the government.

Glad I found out they owe us $400 more than she thought.

Now for the state taxes.

Oh, crap! One of the errors in on the state form.

How 'bout that Obama, eh?

He went and killed those pirates! Good for him!

I hear the remaining pirates are really pissed. Big whoop! Arm the sailors, so they can defend themselves.

You wonder why I don't comment on current affairs anymore.

D___ it!

Lost my train of thought!

The wife came home from shopping; I read the kid a story; watched Letterman for a bit...

Sump'm about Harry Browne.

Molyneux did a eulogy of Browne in podcast 123 [yes, I've listen to all of them up to that one - OCD, they call it], which led me to Browne's eulogy of Peter McWilliams from 2000 and...

Browne's... what do you call those things? A forerunner, or whatever of How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World called A Gift to My Daughter that he wrote on Christmas, 1962.

You know I'm gonna quote it, don't you? Here you go:

No one owes you anything.

Go see how he develops that theme.

Media Alert

!!!

In brief Editor Sheldon Richman is a guest on the Glenn Beck Show today. The topic is “Fascism v Socialism”. Sheldon will be at the top of the show, which commences at 5:00 pm Eastern time on Fox News.

!!!

Here's FEE's blog.

Osama bin Laden Reported Dead

Big whoop. What's he done for me lately?

Here's the link.

I've never considered asking anyone how to wash a car

I've just grumbled about the fact that nobody ever told me anything about it. Generally I do OK, but I did scratch the crap out of the old pickup truck.

But! With Google, all things are possible! Here are three articles about it: one, two, three.

The latter two have lots more than that, but the first has the best advice on car care info.

That's a bit more than a hint of how I plan to spend Saturday.

I was just typing up a paper for my wife

and Word, not liking her use of the word "tenuring", suggested "tonsuring." The sentence was about teachers' careers.

It would be funnier to show you the whole sentence, but I say enough weird shtuff here that I don't need to take the risk of drawing my wife's employer's attention to this here blog.

Speaking of new posts

It's about time I wrote one, eh? I'm still studying Molyneux to see how pleased I am with his thinking, and since he's put out tons of stuff, it takes a while. And, of course, it seems to me that his thesis on atheism is logically consistent (and that most theology isn't), so now I have to compare that to my own experience. No guarantees where that will lead.

I have choir practice tonight, after the Lenten Service (in fact, we're supposed to sing tonight, though I've missed a couple practices - I'll have to sit this one out). This choir member could use a good talking to.

[Update: I was wrong. The church is putting on a production of The Sound of Music and they were doing a dress rehearsal tonight. I was just a bit freaked.

Oh, and on the contradictions here: thank you, Grapevine.]

The Mises Institute has made Rothbard's History of Thought available online. I like this passage from the intro:

[Oops, I had a spare half line there.]

The continual progress, onward-and-upward approach was demolished for me, and should have been for everyone, by Thomas Kuhn's famed Structure of Scientific Revolutions.5 Kuhn paid no attention to economics, but instead, in the standard manner of philosophers and historians of science, focused on such ineluctably 'hard' sciences as physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Bringing the word 'paradigm' into intellectual discourse, Kuhn demolished what I like to call the 'Whig theory of the history of science'. The Whig theory, subscribed to by almost all historians of science, including economics, is that scientific thought progresses patiently, one year after another developing, sifting, and testing theories, so that science marches onward and upward, each year, decade or generation learning more and possessing ever more correct scientific theories. On analogy with the Whig theory of history, coined in mid-nineteenth century England, which maintained that things are always getting (and therefore must get) better and better, the Whig historian of science, seemingly on firmer grounds than the regular Whig historian, implicitly or explicitly asserts that 'later is always better' in any particular scientific discipline. The Whig historian (whether of science or of history proper) really maintains that, for any point of historical time, 'whatever was, was right', or at least better than 'whatever was earlier'. The inevitable result is a complacent and infuriating Panglossian optimism. In the historiography of economic thought, the consequence is the firm if implicit position that every individual economist, or at least every school of economists, contributed their important mite to the inexorable upward march. There can, then, be no such thing as gross systemic error that deeply flawed, or even invalidated, an entire school of economic thought, much less sent the world of economics permanently astray.

Kuhn, however, shocked the philosophic world by demonstrating that this is simply not the way that science has developed. Once a central paradigm is selected, there is no testing or sifting, and tests of basic assumptions only take place after a series of failures and anomalies in the ruling paradigm has plunged the science into a 'crisis situation'. One need not adopt Kuhn's nihilistic philosophic outlook, his implication that no one paradigm is or can be better than any other, to realize that his less than starry-eyed view of science rings true both as history and as sociology.

But if the standard romantic or Panglossian view does not work even in the hard sciences, afortiori it must be totally off the mark in such a 'soft science' as economics, in a discipline where there can be no laboratory testing, and where numerous even softer disciplines such as politics, religion, and ethics necessarily impinge on one's economic outlook.

There can therefore be no presumption whatever in economics that later thought is better than earlier, or even that all well-known economists have contributed their sturdy mite to the developing discipline. For it becomes very likely that, rather than everyone contributing to an ever-progressing edifice, economics can and has proceeded in contentious, even zig-zag fashion, with later systemic fallacy sometimes elbowing aside earlier but sounder paradigms, thereby redirecting economic thought down a total erroneous or even tragic path. The overall path of economics may be up, or it may be down, over any give time period.

In recent years, economics, under the dominant influence of formalism, positivism and econometrics, and preening itself on being a hard science, has displayed little interest in its own past. It has been intent, as in any 'real' science, on the latest textbook or journal article rather than on exploring its own history. After all, do contemporary physicists spend much time poring over eighteenth century optics?

No, I don't take that use of "Whig" personally. He's referring to Acton and Macauley and others like them. We love them, but they did tend to portray history as constant progress. Progressives took up that style and, in Acton's time, began the process of reversing everything he would have called progress. That's why I call myself, following Hayek (in my case, it's an allusion to Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative" ), an "old whig."

Oh, here's a great Aristotle quote from the book: "men do not become tyrants in order that they may not suffer cold". That's from page 14 of the book (page 30 of the pdf).

Hey! There's a new post on Omni's blog!

It looks like an ad, though.

Bummer.

Can't they do anything with a German Major?

If you don't go over there for any other reason, you gotta look at that swirly thing in the title bar. How did she do that?

The kitty cat's cute, too.

She sends me karma. Hope she's stocked up on the good stuff.

Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty

has sent out an alert, Peaceful Dissent and Government Witch Hunts:

As most readers of this are probably aware, the Campaign for Liberty has been singled out, along with a few other political groups, in a leaked Missouri state government report, "The Modern Militia Movement." The document tells state officials to be on the lookout for violent extremists while conflating them with pretty much anyone who criticizes the government. Perhaps most troubling, the information apparently comes from the Department of Homeland Security, meaning that similar documents could be circulating in states other than Missouri.

I made sure to include that link. It's interesting reading.

Here is a summation of where we are now:

In the summer of 2005, the FBI admitted to collecting thousands of documents on non-violent activists, the ACLU, Greenpeace, and antiwar organizations. By using "National Security Letters," the government could force citizens to relinquish personal and financial information while forbidding them from informing anyone, including their lawyer. By 2005, about 30,000 such letters were issued annually. The FBI spied on the Catholic Worker Movement, noting its "semi-communistic ideology."

The same year, NBC News obtained a secret 400-page Pentagon document that tracked such "extremists" as anti-war Quakers in Florida, whose meeting was officially described as a "suspicious incident" and a "threat." All the while, peaceful activists were denied their right to travel by being inexplicably put on federal No-Fly lists.

Now the flavor of government has changed from the Republican leviathan of George W. Bush to the Democratic leviathan of Barack Hussein Obama. A different group is vulnerable to being marginalized -- in many ways a revitalization of the Clinton era atmosphere, although now with the post-9/11 concern about peace activists and all the surveillance powers inaugurated by Bush still in place.

Interestingly, he, Anthony Gregory, doesn't end the article with any call to action, except to "speak up; to tell the truth; to defend the freedoms of all people to speak, live in peace, pursue happiness in a world of liberty, so long as they do not commit aggression against their fellow man." No call for funding - though he does brag up the C4L, as they like to abbreviate it, talking about how they're doing just that.

Holy Crap! It looks like the commies had a point!

From Kevin Carson's The Subsidy of History:

Contrary to Mises’s rosy version of the Industrial Revolution in Human Action, factory owners were not innocent in all of this. Mises claimed that the capital investments on which the factory system was built came largely from hard-working and thrifty workmen who saved their own earnings as investment capital. In fact, however, they were junior partners of the landed elites, with much of their investment capital coming either from the Whig landed oligarchy or from the overseas fruits of mercantilism, slavery, and colonialism.

In addition, factory employers depended on harsh authoritarian measures by the government to keep labor under control and reduce its bargaining power. In England the Laws of Settlement acted as a sort of internal passport system, preventing workers from traveling outside the parish of their birth without government permission. Thus workers were prevented from “voting with their feet” in search of better-paying jobs. You might think this would have worked to the disadvantage of employers in underpopulated areas, like Manchester and other areas of the industrial north. But never fear: the state came to the employers’ rescue. Because workers were forbidden to migrate on their own in search of better pay, employers were freed from the necessity of offering high enough wages to attract free agents; instead, they were able to “hire” workers auctioned off by the parish Poor Law authorities on terms set by collusion between the authorities and employers.

The whole thing is worth reading. Carson, Molyneux and Tom DiLorenzo (I'm currently reading his Hamilton's Curse, which charts the course of British Mercantilism and Crony Capitalism in American history) are turning me into a Left Libertarian.

Hey! It's St. Urho's Day!

I'm pretty sure that this post right here is the greatest celebration of it in the whole world. Maybe somebody up on Da Range'll be hoistin' a brew over it tonight.

I think I'll run the kids through a Finnish lesson.

Yesterday, I tried to celebrate the Ides of March by reading from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, but the kids wandered off on me. I got through the first act.

Tomorrow we'll figure out what to do for the Irish guy.

Sorry. I've been spending every free moment

trying to catch up with that anarchist, atheist, apostate-Objectivist, anti-family* Stefan Molyneux.

I think he's pretty cool, naturally.

I'm almost hesitant to suggest a starting point, but if you're having any problems with anybody (at all), Real-Time Relationships is quite likely to direct you to the solution. Otherwise, run through that page top to bottom. That's what I did.

Payday's Monday, Stef.

*[Added later] He's been accused of being anti-family. What he really is, is pro chosen relationships; you find yourself quite accidentally thrown in with your family: if they don't hold their relationship with you sacred, then neither should you. The sacred bond is already broken. See if you can repair it - with techniques he provides, but if you can't, it may be time to get out. Don't hurt anybody, just declare personal independence.

Nullification Lives!

The Principles of '98* are experiencing a revival:

Last week, HUMAN EVENTS reported that eleven states, Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas, had all “all introduced bills and resolutions” declaring their sovereignty over Obama’s actions in light of the 10th Amendment.

These actions are in response to the Obama administration’s faux-“stimulus” legislation which directly assaults the rights of states to reject the money coming from the federal government. So far, several Republican governors -- among them South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal -- have said they would refuse all or part of the stimulus money because of the constitutional infringements and because of the additional unfunded liabilities they impose on the states.

This week, HUMAN EVENTS is happy to report that five more states have decided to invoke the 10th as well.

These five -- Tennessee, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, and West Virginia -- have all begun their action under the 10th Amendment in a bid to protect themselves from what they view as nothing less than an unconstitutional usurpation of power on the part of the Obama administration.

And a commenter adds:

I find it interesting that this column mentions only Jindal and Sanford as rejecting some of the stimulus money. In fact, it was Gov. Sarah Palin who was the first governor to go on record as rejecting the stimulus, and has in fact rejected more than 50 percent of the money Alaska is expected to be in line for. Jindal on the other hand, has only rejected $98 million out of a total of $9 billion his state is expected to receive.

Besides that, it is important to note that more people are starting to realize that the 10th Amendment still exists, and has been ignored far too long.

*Note that a commenter, Michael Boldin, gives links to The Kentucky (author, Vice President Thomas Jefferson) and Virginia (Madison) Resolutions of 1798, against the Alien and Sedition Acts - but they have far broader reach than that.

Can we just throw all bullcrap under the bus?

Stefan Molyneux has some ideas on how.

I ran across him while checking out the 9-11 Truthers. Everything they say that can be thought to have some validity is covered by Molyneux. And then some. I would defend them (the link for his address to them) somewhat by saying that anything that brings people over to our side is useful.

Zeitgeist: The Movie - a Truther vehicle - is pretty interesting.

Except that it looks like they're wandering off into occultism. Why fight an enemy that's omniscient and omnipotent?

The great god Google only answers the questions you ask it.

I can't believe I never went looking for the Thomas Jefferson Papers before.

How about those Annual Messages to Congress, eh?

Sheldon Richman's talking about Greed today:

LINK

Greedy people by definition want more not less. So they will be as concerned to hold on to what they have as they will be to increase their wealth. Risky investment is a way to get more but also a way to end up with less. Greed, therefore, will tend to restrain recklessness if people know their profits and losses belong to them. The corollary is that the restraints on recklessness will be weakened to the extent that people expect the losses to be absorbed by others. Market discipline is the key.

For large financial institutions in the United States, Scenario B is far closer to reality than Scenario A. As Gerald P. O’Driscoll Jr.writes, “Deposit insurance, access to the Fed’s lending, and the implicit (now explicit) government guarantee for banks ‘too big to fail’ all constituted a system of financial corporatism.” What these interventions have in common is the potential to shift losses forcibly from those who should be responsible for them to someone else—making reckless behavior and losses more likely than they would be. That’s the definition of moral hazard.

Greed is an easy target. But blaming greed gets us nowhere. As Lawrence White says, it’s like blaming gravity for a plane crash. It certainly doesn’t suggest any sensible policy response. The religion professor said we need more regulation. But if people are greedy, how do more regulators promise to improve matters? They are people too.

If we can’t trust people with freedom, how can we trust them with power?

People can't be trusted with anything. We should just drug 'em all up and keep them in tanks of saline solution like the whatchamajiggums on "Minority Report."

BTW, make sure you read the comments after the article as well.

I think Mises.org must be bugging my phone

Gresham's Law came up in a conversation with my brother the other day, so they post this article, Wage and Price Controls In The Ancient World, with this quote from Yuan Hsieh (AD 1223):

Now, the officials are anxious to increase wealth, and want to put both iron money and copper money in circulation. If money were suddenly made abundant during a period of scarcity, it should be very good. But the fact never can be so. Formerly, because the paper money was too much, the copper money became less. If we now add the iron money to it, should not the copper money but become still less? Formerly, because the paper money was too much, the price of commodities was dear. If we now add the iron money to the market, would the price not become still dearer? … When we look over the different provinces, the general facts are these. Where paper and money are both employed, paper is super-abundant, but money is always insufficient. Where the copper money is the only currency without any other money, money is usually abundant. Therefore, we know that the paper can only injure the copper money, but not help its insufficiency.[22]

The copper, in this case, goes to where it is most valued. Sometimes that's your mattress, but usually it goes to where "you get the most bang for your buck."

The footnote points to: Huan-ehang Chen, The Economic Principles of Confucius and His School (New York: Longmans, 1911) pp. 444–445.

I love the discussion of the Sumerian (Lagash) concept of Ama-gi, too. It means freedom, though, etymologically, it means, "return to the mother."

Oh! In case you didn't notice

Ron's back! He's having trouble with the new interface, but hopefully he'll get that all straightened out soon.

Thomas Woods is going to be in town

this weekend (thanks for the link, Marianne). I just finished his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History today. I enjoy watching his speeches on YouTube, particularly this one from the Rally for the Republic last year.

The dude can flat rouse some rabble!

Want to know what I really think?

The proof that Marxism was crap came with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The proof that Keynesianism was crap came with the stagflation of the ‘70s.
The proof that Monetarism is crap is coming now with the collapse of the international banking system.

Feeding the crocodile in the hope that he’ll eat you last.

Who’s next? I'm attacking the vulgar versions of these theories, because vulgar people make policy.

How about that List guy? Note the "see also" section.

I believe I'll be adding

Brian Wright to my blogroll. A couple of those links are dead, I'm afraid. Let's put in one that works.

Here's a good one

from Wendy McElroy:

In 1914, Lord Edward Grey said of World War I, "the lights are going out across Europe. We shall not see them again for a long time." [In some versions, the quote ends "We shall not see them again in our lifetime."] And, yet, freedom recovered from the convulsing insanity of world war...as it will recover again. I believe this is inevitable because liberty is not an institution but an urge within man, and human nature will not change.

I like the last part.

Grigg mentioned Jeffrey Hummel's book

Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men. I don't have that one and haven't read it (excellent review here and Ross has a long article about it here), but the title comes from something Lincoln said about conscription, I believe, but I'm not finding it on the web, so I'll have to get ahold of Hummel's book. He mentions it in passing in this speech, Slavery in America, at FEE. (He gives a couple other speeches at their History and Liberty seminar, too: The Radicalism of the American Founding and One Nation Under Bigger Government: The Civil War

Ross, btw, contests Hummel's notion that slavery would have died quickly in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede. That idea predates Hummel's book, my Grampa, a history teacher in Oklahoma, used to say that too. It seems to me, though, that Hummel's speech (the first one) gives credence to Ross' argument in that he tells us that the theory of racism/slavery was given a strong boost by the Haitian uprising and subsequent events there.

Want to see a Libertarian Manifesto?

Well, I'll just link to it then. William N. Grigg, the author, linked to that from here. Follow the Salamis link, too, when you read the latter.

I just bought that Shenandoah at Buy.com because of this guy.

Oh, hey! I see there's a quote from the movie I just bought in my Google Ads. Actually a paraphrase. I bought a couple; I'll review the lot on Bourgeois Philistines. There's a link around here somewhere. That's where I do that sort of thing.

Amen!

From Keynesian Creationism - Part I, by Max Borders at TCS Daily:

As popular as the barb ["market fundamentalism"] has become in the titter-factories of the left blogosphere, it misses. For example, it's not that free-market types don't believe in "market failure." Indeed, far from being dogmatic about the power of markets to solve every problem under the sun, it's that we're skeptical about government power to solve any such problem. But prior to that, we start by asking "fail at what?" If we can agree on X and on the criteria for the success or failure of X, we want to then talk about alternative means—particularly those that involve the Rube Goldberg apparatus of state bureaucracy.

You all know hotforwords, don't you?

I'm a huge fan of etymology.

I feel like posting this graph

I got from Friesian.com:

It goes well with this quote:

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.... And an enormous debt to boot!

Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee, May 9, 1939

The old boy jumped right off the reservation, didn't he?

Hey! Happy Birthday, Ron!

Here's the old geezer right here!



Why does the phrase, "Book 'im, Danno!" come to mind?

Dut da dut da Da-ah Da-ah...

Crap! It says "Embedding disabled by request." I'd have that video here in a second! My kinda thing.

No, he's not in Hawaii. I think he's been there, though.

I promise to send him there when I'm rich, how about that?