The advertising above is just a source of revenue, and sometimes, I don't know what will appear there.
Unique grips and accessories for your 1911!
Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through.
Labels: abortion Labels: telescopes Labels: child sexual abuse Labels: child sexual abuse, homosexuality Labels: child sexual abuse Labels: economics
Never forget!
I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win
I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
Sorry, high pressure isn't included.
My nephew Shippy makes very pretty ceramic items. Click here to visit his online studio. Give someone one of these, and you can be sure that they don't already have one!
Click here to find out why the Amazon.com Honor System paybox is no longer here.
RSS feed
Other blogs you may enjoy:
My civilian gun defense use blog
My daughter's blog
Pete Drum's Web Page
Gun Laws Don't Work
instapundit.com
Dissecting Leftism -- By John Ray
A courageous Briton arguing for relaxing Britain's gun control laws
Right Thoughts
Final Protective Fire
Amitai Etzioni's Blog
Scrappleface -- Dangerously Clever Satire
Michael Williams -- Master of None
Another Conservative Blogger
A Group Blog By Iraqis
THE MESOPOTAMIAN: TO BRING ONE MORE IRAQI VOICE OF THE SILENT MAJORITY TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WORLD
Specializing in discussions of discrimination and affirmative action
An Iraqi dentist
Promoting children being raised by their own parents
A federal law clerk opines about the law
Michelle Malkin's blog
Impearls: a blog as electic and interesting as mine
Proving that the United States military does more than kill people and break things.
May not agree with this group on everything, but stopping the ACLU is high on my list
A conservative/moderate black blogger.
Another sensible American
Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party
Music, Politics, Motorcycles
Maggie's Farm: Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
A blog dedicated to "Documenting Saddam Hussein's support of Terrorism"
The blog of one of my fellow bloggers on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
J. Norman Heath's Blog--a circus rigger and Second Amendment scholar (really!)
Buckeye Firearms Association, for you Ohio gun owners and activists
Click here for a FREE NEWSLETTER on Ohio Gun Rights from Buckeye Firearms Association!
Another conservative.
Neocon Blues
Conservative Oasis
Other Idaho Bloggers
Bubbleheads is a retired submariner
An Idaho State University student. A Democrat. Someday, she'll start paying income taxes and change.
A retired Las Vegas stagehand, of all things.
archives
Search only this site: Click here and enter your search string at the beginning of the search field.
Never Enough
One of the many reasons why the homosexual marriage issue has me so irritated is that no matter what equality the law provides, it is never enough--and homosexuals insist not just on equal treatment by government, but equal treatment by private firms as well. This article about the marriage licenses being issued by San Francisco discusses the fact that because these licenses were issued in violation of state law, a lot of companies are unwilling to treat these newly married homosexual couples as being actually married: The couple asked State Farm for the marriage-discount rate on their car insurance, and the company mailed them an acknowledgment form showing both their names.
In the mid-1970s, in California, homosexuals complained about police harrassment, and they wanted the sodomy laws repealed. I agreed at the time; I couldn't understand who all these Christians were who wanted the laws left in place. (I was young, naive, fairly liberal, and like most of my generation, I saw homosexuality as just a different lifestyle, not for me, but if others wanted that, sure!) The laws went away, and amazingly enough, within six years, the promiscuity of gay men meant that AIDS was burning a fire through the homosexual community, and soon, contaminating the blood supply.
But now State Farm says it won't give them the lower rate after all.
"At this point, as far as I know, State Farm has not recognized same-sex marriages," State Farm spokeswoman Janet Ruiz said. Other discounts are available to homosexual couples, she said.
To Chamberlain, that sounds like "we're on the cusp of being treated again as second-class citizens."
By 1979, homosexuals were insisting that private employers (admittedly, a public utility) could be sued for discrimination based on sexual orientation--and the California Supreme Court agreed.
In the 1990s, the struggle was to extend this to nearly all private employers, and California's Legislature went along, banning all discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1992. (Note: sexual orientation was not defined by the law. You don't want to hire a member of NAMBLA at your day care center? Lawsuit, lawsuit!)
Now homosexuals are insisting that they have a right to government recognition of marriage.
But that's not good enough: "we're on the cusp of being treated again as second-class citizens." So private companies will have to be forced as well.
Libertarians keep insisting that all of this is a libertarian policy. But inevitably, because the need for approval is so strong (as opposed to the libertarian ideal of laissez-faire), homosexuals aren't content with making the government treat them like everyone else. They need to force everyone to treat them that way. There is nothing libertarian about this, and libertarians should wake up, and admit that they have crawled into bed with a bunch that isn't interested in freedom, but control.
We've already seen how homosexuals have destroyed the concept of free speech in Canada and Britain as part of their irrational need to suppress disapproval. I expect plenty of libertarians will start to make excuses for shutting up disapproving voices here, in the interests of "fairness."
UPDATE: A reader points out that insurance companies give a discount to a married couple because their loss experience shows that married people are less expensive to insure, as reflected by actual losses. This is certainly true for heterosexual married couples. Will this necessarily be true for homosexual married couples? Maybe, maybe not. If I were an insurance company, I would not assume that a homosexual married couple is going to have the same loss record as a heterosexual married couple.
More About the Albany Church Scandal
This is over at FreeRepublic.com, so read with appropriate care, rather like you were reading the New York Times: Andrew Zalay, once of Albany and now working in California as an engineer, showed members of the media excerpts from his brother Tom's diary Wednesday that say shame and confusion from a relationship with Hubbard drove him to suicide in 1978 at the age of 25.
Lifestyle? Gee, what do you think Tom Zalay was talking about?
"The relations with Howard are both spiritual and intellectual and are an assistance to my self-confidence, but at the same time the relationship was decadent and sinful," wrote Tom Zalay in an undated diary entry. "As bishop, I think he has unfairly used his position in the church to get what he wants from me. ... I hope the hereafter is a better place. ... This lifestyle is not for me. I need to get out. I do believe the only way to get out is to take my own life."
Andrew Zalay, with attorney John Aretakis at his side, said his brother was molested as a boy by Rev. John Bertolucci and later by Hubbard. Andrew Zalay requested last August that state Supreme Court Judge Christian Hummel release Bertolucci's personnel file. Hummel denied that request.
Andrew Zalay said he is not going to file a lawsuit and is not looking for money. He decided to come forward, he said, so "more children don't get hurt."
Toy Gun Control
From the Salinas Californian: Five-year-old Martin Patiño threw his toy machine gun into a trashcan marked "armas no," Spanish for "no guns," and he promptly picked up a coloring book to replace it.
Isn't it odd that middle class kids used to grow up playing with toy guns, and even BB guns, without becoming gang members? Hint: it isn't the toy guns that are the problem. There are some social and cultural problems involved, but it is easier to blame a toy.
Martin was one of about 30 Alisal Community School kindergartners from four classes Wednesday who traded in their fake guns for gentle toys such as stuffed animals and Play-Doh.
Kindergarten teacher Myriam Kennelly came up with the idea of the "peace toy trade" as a way of letting kids and parents know that guns of any kind are not permitted at the school.
"We just want parents to be aware," Kennelly said. "They think that the gang problem begins in the high school, and that's not true."
Amusing Self-Defense Account
I was at first worried that the headline had something to do with the German cannibalism case, but no, that's just an expression: Butcher makes mincemeat of robbers
From correspondents in Strasbourg
February 19, 2004
THREE robbers who bundled up the staff of a supermarket in eastern France on Wednesday found they had bitten off more than they could chew when the shop's butcher took to them with one of his meat cleavers, police said.
Two of the criminals were wounded in the counter-attack and were picked up by police a short time afterwards.
The Economist About Outsourcing
They have written an article arguing that the protectionist forces are making too big of an issue about outsourcing. I don't dispute that relative to the overall economy, the jobs going overseas are pretty small. (It is still little consolation if you are one of the people whose job has gone away, and is unlikely to be coming back, to know that someone else has a good job instead.)
They also make some good points about how some Democrats are picking the starting year for counting job losses in a way that exaggerates the extent of the problem--picking 2001, before businesses started laying off workers. It is certainly true that some of the three million jobs lost is cyclical, not permanent.
It is at least worth reading after listening to the doom and gloom sorts.
A Fascinating Argument: Will Liberals Accept It About Concealed Carry Permits?
Liberals are suddenly making libertarian arguments for gay marriage: Mathew Staver, a lawyer representing the Campaign for California Families, said he believes the court ultimately will find that Newsom acted illegally when he began allowing gay marriages last week.
The same is true for carrying concealed firearms, or owning an "assault weapon." No one is hurt by being allowed to carry a gun, or have an AR-15. The same is true for allowing employers and employees to make what ever wage arrangements they want (say, paying less than minimum wage). The liberal argument for why the government has the right to regulate all these matters isn't the direct effect, but the indirect effect.
"He can't decide to grant same-sex marriage licenses any more than he can declare war against a foreign country," Staver said.
But chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart said the failure of conservative opponents to win emergency injunctions demonstrates that the city has a strong case.
"Both judges really recognized there is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry," Stewart said.
Hey, if liberals decide that they are really libertarians, that's fine. We'll scrap the vast majority of the laws now on the books. But the fact is that liberals aren't libertarians. They still insist on the right of the government to regulate wages and gun ownership because of the indirect effects.
Even on marriage, their libertarian-sounding arguments are just an excuse to do what they want to do. Ask them why San Francisco isn't issuing group marriage licenses for polygamists, or for five year olds, or, across species lines. After all, who is hurt by these things? Suddenly their libertarian-sounding arguments will all evaporate.
Powerful Book Review in Atlantic Monthly
It's by Caitlin Flanagan titled "How Serfdom Saved the Women's Movement." Her criticism of a number of recent books about working mothers--all written, according to Ms. Flanagan's review, from an almost reflexively feminist perspective--seem spot on to me from living in various parts of California, which is something of a cauldron of both highly paid professional women--and mothers struggling to bring in enough money to pay for luxuries like health care and dental exams. Flanagan is not impressed with the reasoning of these works. It's a long essay, well-written, and worth reading in full. I can't even begin to summarize here without going on for many pages, but I will give you a few interesting and important points.
Flanagan argues that feminism engaged in an at least delusive, if not intentionally self-serving claim that back in the 1950s and 1960s, all women were oppressed in roughly equal ways, and that what all women had in common with respect to work and childrearing was pretty much the same regardless of economic status. As the title of her review suggests, Flanagan believes that without the mass importation of poorly paid, largely illegal immigrants (often exploited for that reason), the modern feminist ideal of the working professional mother would have been impossible. Flanagan's criticism of Ann Crittenden's The Price of Motherhood: The Price of Motherhood proceeds from an undeniable and painful truth: that although keeping a house and raising children are as physically exhausting and emotionally demanding as almost any job you can think of, they are entirely unpaid endeavors?a fact that carries grave economic repercussions for women far beyond the loss of a weekly paycheck. This was made starkly evident to Crittenden?as it is made starkly evident to millions of women every year?when she took a look at her Social Security statement and noticed a startling row of zeros, the first of which corresponded exactly to the date she began her life's most challenging work: raising her son.
As the historian Elizabeth Fox-Genovese observed some years ago during a debate about feminism, it had done women like herself with good jobs an immense good; for a vast swarm of women, raising kids on their own, living in a trailer park, surviving on irregular child support payments and welfare, feminism had been a net disadvantage. Flanagan points out that this is not simply a question of some gaining and other losing, with no connection between the two. The privileged class of professional mothers needed a class of women poor enough to do the "[excrement expletive deleted] jobs" without impairing their careers. Yet as Flanagan points out, a previous generation of women had not regarded these as awful tasks, but simply part of being a mother. Even when these jobs were tedious, they were part of motherhood, for good and bad.
...
Crittenden's chapter on nannies, of which the Zoe Baird case is the centerpiece, is buried near the back of the book, as if even its author is aware of how illogical it is?aware that nearly every sentence undermines the book's most central arguments, that the entire topic of nannies is the Achilles' heel of the feminist campaign to help professional-class mothers earn the right to (as they would say) mother and work without guilt.
Baird's nomination hearings came to an abrupt halt when it was revealed that she employed two Peruvian illegal immigrants as domestic workers, one of them as her child's nanny, and had failed to pay the required Social Security taxes on their wages. (The two, by the way, earned around $6.00 an hour, whereas their employers' household income was well in excess of half a million dollars a year.) This, Crittenden tells us, was merely "a civil violation"?one that might be viewed on a par with getting a parking ticket. "That was Zoe Baird's crime," Crittenden informs us in quiet, seething understatement: just that silly little civil violation about the taxes, or whatever. And then the world came crashing down on poor Zoe because her case really became a referendum on working mothers. "Just when we are on the verge of moving into real power," a friend of Crittenden's lamented, "they invented a new reason to keep us out." Those damn nanny taxes! What next?
But wait a minute, Ann. Haven't you just spent an entire book telling us how important Social Security set-asides are? Didn't you characterize Social Security as "the keystone of the American welfare state"? Didn't you remind us that "a person can only qualify for Social Security as an employed worker or as the 'dependent' spouse or widow of an employed worker"? (We're hip to those quotation marks around "dependent," by the way?the word is so damn insulting to women. Right on, sister. But it's a word with a particular resonance in the case of the Bairds' two domestic workers, seeing as they were married to each other, and neither one of them was getting Social Security contributions.)
Flanagan is not going to pretend that everything was wonderful about being a 1950s mother. She just wants some of the writers on the subject to admit that while something was gained, something was lost as well:What few will admit--because it is painful, because it reveals the unpleasant truth that life presents a series of choices, each of which precludes a host of other attractive possibilities--is that when a mother works, something is lost. Children crave their mothers. They always have and they always will. And women fortunate enough to live in a society where they have access to that greatest of levelers, education, will always have the burning dream of doing something more exciting and important than tidying Lego blocks and running loads of laundry. If you want to make an upper-middle-class woman squeal in indignation, tell her she can't have something. If she works she can't have as deep and connected a relationship with her child as she would if she stayed home and raised him. She can't have the glamour and respect conferred on career women if she chooses instead to spend her days at "Mommy and Me" classes. She can't have both things. I have read numerous accounts of the anguish women have felt leaving small babies with caregivers so that they could go to work, and I don't discount those stories for a moment. That the separation of a woman from her child produces agony for both is one of the most enduring and impressive features of the human experience, and it probably accounts for why we've made it as far as we have. I've read just as many accounts of the despair that descends on some women when their world is abruptly narrowed to the tedium and exhaustion of the nursery; neither do I discount these stories: I've felt that self-same despair.
One thing that my wife and I have noticed, over the years, is the dramatic decline in the quality of middle class kids. By this, we mean that what used to be considered middle class standards of education, behavior, and values are now relatively scarce. There is no great surprise to this. A generation ago, the woman who was the primary caretaker of middle class kids was their middle class mother. Today, more often than not, the primary caretaker of middle class kids is a daycare provider.
There are exceptional daycare situations out there (and priced accordingly). Most kids aren't in those situations, nor are they being raised in their own home by a nanny from some Third World country. In our experience, they are being raised by women who are so poorly educated that daycare is the highest paying work that they can find. Let me be clear on this: there are women providing daycare because they love kids, and often they compensate for the low pay because they are raising their own kids at the same time. When my wife was working on her BA, our son went to daycare 1 1/2 hours a day, three days a week, with a woman we knew from church. She was educated, intelligent, and with thoroughly middle class in her values.
But more typical of daycare providers, in our experience, was our neighbor, who had dropped out of high school, didn't vote because she didn't consider herself smart enough, and failed to adequately look after her charges. She eventually stopped doing it because her conscience bothered her. One child she watched from 7 to 7 everyday, starting at six weeks (when California stops paying disability insurance after a birth) while Mom drove a shiny new BMW to an important job in San Francisco. At the father's request, our neighbor kept it a secret when the baby first crawled, rolled over, and walked. By the time the baby was two, she called our neighbor "Mommy" and would hit her biological mother at the end of the day. The mother-child bond wasn't there.
Lower class women are now raising middle class children. I hope that this isn't a suprise to you when I tell you that even in very middle class schools, there are big behavior problems. Unfortunately, it's not just in California; it's here in Boise as well, because much of the poison of "have children; let someone else raise them" has spread throughout the country. It may not be as bad here; my son tells me that in his middle school classes, about half the kids simply ignored the teacher, kept talking, and otherwise being disruptive. The teacher just talked louder, recognizing the unrealism of requiring kids to behave. This is a big improvement over middle school in Sonoma County, where my son tells me that some teachers did little teaching; the whole class was spent yelling at kids to sit down and be quiet. As much as I disagree with Mormon theology, at least Mormons some effort into promoting the idea of raising your own kids. That's probably why half the class at my son's middle school was prepared to sit down and listen.
Promoting the idea that every mother should be working--and thus, every child is in daycare--will someday be looked back upon as one of the great mistakes of the last half of the twentieth century. At least some of the blame can be reduced back to that simple error of treating people as members of a class, rather than as individuals. Social expectations meant that every mother in the 1950s was supposed to be home raising kids, even though some were not suited to it. This was wrong, because it assumed that every member of the class of mothers had, or should have, the same goals and expectations.
The correction to these social expectations (sometimes written into law, and sometimes not) were social expectations that every woman who wasn't stupid should be working, letting the stupid ones raise the kids. This was wrong for the same reason--the assumption that all members of the class mother should be employed.
Question For Your California Law Students
Are there any cases that you are aware of where the California Constitution's equal protection clause struck down any law based on sexual orientation? There's a 1978 case where gay law students sued Pacific Telephone for discrimination against homosexuals. I recall that the case was decided based on freedom of political expression under the Unruh Civil Rights Law. (The theory was that being openly homosexual was a political act, since there was no law prohibiting discrimination based on seuxal orientation at the time.)
It would seem a bit strange for California's equal protection clause to have prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation--but not be used to strike down the state's laws banning homosexuality (not repealed until the 1970s).
Ralph Nader Considering Run For Presidency
Run, Ralph, run! As frustrated as I get with Bush's triangulation strategy, it will not cause me to support a third party candidate to run aganst Bush from the right. If you have to wonder why, look at Ralph Nader and the effect he had on the 2000 election. Al Gore wasn't far enough left for Ralph Nader, and Nader's forces, rather than recognize that they represent a fairly small minority viewpoint, decided to punish the Democratic Party for not catering to them:Nader, who turns 70 next week, has said he would base his decision, in part, on whether Democratic and Republican officials respond to his agenda, which includes the need for universal health insurance, a more progressive wage policy and making dramatic reforms to the criminal justice system.
Conservatives are a good more common than "progressives," or whatever the term du jour is for Nader's form of leftism, but there still aren't enough of us to elect a president--but there are enough of us to guarantee a victory for someone like Kerry, if we sit on our hands.
...
Nader was on the ballot in nearly every state in 2000 and garnered 2.7 percent of the popular vote. In Florida and New Hampshire, Bush won such narrow victories that had Gore received the bulk of Nader's votes in those states, he would have won the general election.
It is not a good situation. I understand those who get frustrated that conservatives have so little influence in America. But the alternative is to make ourselves into the equivalent of Ralph Nader.
A Cure For Opiate Addiction?
Here's one of those amazing stories that I am instinctively skeptical of, but it is at least interesting:However, when it comes to curing addiction, a reputable scientist believes ibogaine is nothing short of a miracle. "I didn't believe it when I first heard about ibogaine. I thought it was something that needed to be debunked," admits Dr. Deborah Mash, professor of Neurology and Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology at University of Miami.
The story is careful to emphasize that by itself, it won't do the whole job, and there are people who won't help--but imagine how the world could change if heroin and cocaine users could get free of their addictions. Even a 50% reduction in addicts would mean dramatic reductions in rates of burglary, robbery, and the associated murders, rapes, and aggravated assaults. Resources that are gobbled up by the criminal justice system would be available for schools. Of course, when morphine addiction was a big problem in the nineteenth century, someone came up with a non-addictive substitute: heroin.
Dr. Mash is one of the few scientists in the world to study ibogaine, a mild hallucinogen that comes from the root of a shrub found in West Africa and was rumored to have the amazing ability to help drug addicts kick their addiction.
...
Patrick Kroupa was a heroin addict for 16 of his 35 years. "It was a very high level of desperation. I had been pretty successful in my life, I had accomplished a lot of things I wanted to do, and then repeatedly I just watched everything burst into flames and disintegrate because I could not stay off heroin," confesses Patrick. "It gets very tiring living like a slave because you keep chasing this and it's like you're not getting high, it's just 'I must do this every single day just to get normal so I can function.'"
Like most addicts, Patrick tried to quit. But treatment for addiction is notoriously ineffective. Only one in ten addicts manages to return to a drug-free life. Most stay dependent on illegal drugs or their legal substitutes, like methadone.
"And I was a spectacular failure at every possible treatment modality, every paradigm, every detox, every therapy, nothing ever worked," admits Patrick.
...
"Our first round in St. Kitts, we treated six individuals, and I will go to my grave with the memory of that first round," says Dr. Mash.
It quickly became apparent that one dose of ibogaine blocked the withdrawal symptoms of even hard-core addicts and was amazingly effective for heroin, crack cocaine and even alcohol.
There are two reasons why: The first, science can measure. The second remains a mystery.
...
Patrick admits, "It's literally like a miracle. Nothing has ever worked and this just did." He was one of the 280 people in Dr. Mash's trial of ibogaine.
"Patrick was one of the worst opiate addicts, worst heroin addicts that I have ever enountered in my life," says Dr. Mash. His arms still bear the scars of years of heroin addiction, and he knows only too well what happened when the flow of drugs into those arms was interrupted. "When you're going through withdrawal, you're sweating, you're shaking, you're freezing, you're hot, it feels like your spine is being smashed in a vise, it's pain," describes Patrick.
Within 45 minutes of taking ibogaine, he actually felt his addiction leaving him. "That moment is the first time in about 10 years that I had actually been clean. Not just detoxed, but clean. That was it. That was the first time. That was like a miracle," says Patrick
That was four years ago. Patrick Kroupa has not touched drugs since. "I'm saying this having been on heroin for my entire adult life. I mean, 14 to 30 is a long time," he says.
On one level, Dr. Mash understands some of what happens. Ibogaine in the body is metabolized into another compound called 'noribogaine.' Noribogaine appears to reset chemical switches in the brain of an addict.
"The noribogaine resets that, so it resets the opiates, blocks the opiate withdrawal, diminishes craving and the desire to use, and it elevates mood," say Dr. Mash.
North Dakota Adds Idaho To List of Reciprocity States
North Dakota has added Idaho to the list of states whose concealed weapon permits it recognizes.
Lesbian Marriage in New Mexico
At the end of a story about Mayor Newsom of San Francisco officiating at a gay wedding: In New Mexico, meanwhile, the Sandoval County clerk married a lesbian couple after announcing that the state had no legal grounds to refuse marriage licenses to gays. Other same-sex couples quickly began lining up to exchange vows.
Hmmm. I haven't looked at the New Mexico statutes, so I don't know exactly how the clerk came to this conclusion.
A majority of Americans do not approve of gay marriage. The only question is whether they care enough to do anything about it. Instapundit is of the opinion that the opposition to gay marriage is very soft. I've received email from a gay blogger in Kansas who wanted to bet me about the legal status of homosexual marriage in near-term future America. His bet was that it woudl be lawful. I decline to bet against him, because I think he is correct: within ten years, homosexual marriage will be the law (although not by legislation, but by judicial order).
Within thirty years, I am pretty sure that churches that refuse to solemnize gay weddings will lose their tax-exempt status, again, not by legislation, but by judicial order. After all, what is the tax-exempt status of schools that discriminate based on race? I don't consider the two forms of discrimination at all equivalent, of course, but the analogy will be so powerful that the courts will impose it.
I keep waiting for President Bush to show that he stands with conservatives on this, but I fear that he lacks the guts to side with the 60% of Americans who oppose gay marriage.
In Case You Missed This Example of "Homophobiaphobia"
(Yes, there are two "-phobia" suffixes there--this is the irrational fear of homophobia.) David Bernstein points to this example of outrageous behavior by a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill--and the department chair willing to step in and make the adult behave like an adult: PC at UNC: Student at UNC expresses religious objections to homosexual conduct and criticizes homosexuality as "disgusting" in class. Professor sends out an email to the entire class lambasting this student:
Now, I don't know exactly what the circumstances were that provoked this "outburst." I can imagine circumstances where the student's statement was a legitimate expression of his opinion. I can also imagine circumstances where these remarks were tactless and inappropriate. The professor's response, of course, is just typical of the sort of fascist sentiment that dominates the academic community today, where some ideas are so horrifying, so repulsive, so dangerous, that a student dare not say it. "The idea that dare not speak its name.""what we experienced, as unforuntate (sic) as it is, is, however, a perfect example of privilege. that a white, heterosexual, christian male, one who vehemently denied his privilege last week insisting that he earned all he has, can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable is what privilege makes possible."
The professor adds that such "hate speech" creates a "hostile environment" and will not be tolerated in her class.
Dreams
Some people have erotic dreams; some have nightmares. My dream last night involved opening the Wall Street Journal, looking at the chart of Treasury rates--and seeing a Treasury yield curve inversion--where short-term Treasury yields are higher than long-term Treasury yields. (Click here to see Treasury yield curve online.) This doesn't happen often--once in the entire 15 years that I have been investing. When it does happen, you are supposed to buy the longest term Treasurys you can. Is this a premonition? I hope so!
Publishers Tell Me There's No Market for My New Book
Trade publishers keep insisting that there is no market for my new book (teaser here). So please explain to me why there is a large market for this: Harry Potter becomes "Warrior Cup" and his enemy Voldemort "Scaly Death" in a translation of the schoolboy wizard's adventures into Ancient Greek due for publication this summer.
I have two university presses looking at my manuscript right now--but still, why is there a larger market for a book written in a dead language than there is for a serious history book written in English?
Retired classics teacher Andrew Wilson told Reuters he had to stretch his linguistic ingenuity to turn J.K. Rowling's magic boarding school fantasy into a language not used for 1,500 years.
Wilson, 64, was commissioned in January 2002 by publisher Bloomsbury to translate "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" into the Greek spoken in ancient Athens.
...
Wilson says his translation is the longest text to have been produced in Ancient Greek since the romantic writings of Heliodorus in the third century AD.
"I suspect very few people will read it all the way through," he said. "You will need a degree in Ancient Greek to get a great deal out of it."
But Wilson hopes students studying the ancient language will enjoy reading extracts of the book as a "relaxation."
"Roe" Asks Court of Appeals to Reopen Roe v. Wade (1973)
Norma McCorvey, who was the "Jane Roe" of the most famous and divisive case of my lifetime (although I don't recall hearing about it when it happened), is now a pro-life activist, and has asked the courts to reopen the case, claiming, among other things, that she was taken advantage of by pro-choice attorneys. She now says that the factual basis of that suit--that she had been raped--was a lie. I have also seen an interview in which she says that she didn't even know exactly what an abortion was when she agreed to be the plaintiff. To hear her tell the tale now, she apparently thought "abortion" was rather like an "undo" in your favorite text editor, or to quote the Servpro disaster restoration service ads, "like it never even happened." The argument has advanced to the Court of Appeals:Norma McCorvey, who joined with anti-abortion activists nearly 10 years ago, is seeking to have the decision overturned, citing what she says is more than 30 years of evidence that abortions are psychologically harmful to women.
A Georgia woman who sued in the similar case Doe v. Bolton (1973) now says that she didn't even want an abortion--she just wanted a divorce, and claims that the lawyers involved misled her about the papers that she was signing.
A federal district judge threw out her initial request in June, saying it was not made within a reasonable time. But the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear McCorvey's arguments March 2.
I will tell you that while I think an original intent argument, based on what was lawful and unlawful in 1789, could have been written that came to the same results, Roe v. Wade (1973) isn't really an original intent argument. It is a privacy right argument based on Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), and has all the problems of Griswold.
Conservatives Threatening to Sit Out the Election
You would think from the screeching of the left that Bush is some sort of ideological conservative. Yet the Religious Right is threatening to sit out the election out of frustration with Bush's apparent liberalism on abortion, education spending, spending in general, and his reluctance to get involved in the homosexual marriage struggle:"It's not just economic conservatives upset by runaway federal spending that he's having trouble with. I think his biggest problem will be social conservatives who are not motivated to work for the ticket and to ensure their fellow Christians get to the polling booth," said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute.
So why is the left so vehement against Bush, when he has apparently sold out one of his core constitutencies? As an example, I just received a furious email from my sister about Bush's anti-choice policies, and the enormous damage that Bush's "abstinence-only" sex education policies have done to health education in the schools. The problem, however, is that while the Bush Administration is talking about increasing funding for such policies (and I think they are a mistake), federal funding for such programs was already $100 million a year when Bush took office. Bush hasn't actually made any change in this area. I wrote my sister back asking if perhaps she was upset about the Clinton abstinence-only sex education policies--because they were defintely in place when Bush came into office.
"If there is a rerun of 2000, when an estimated 6 million fewer evangelical Christians voted than in the pivotal year of 1994, then the Bush ticket will be in trouble, especially if there is no [Ralph] Nader alternative to draw Democratic votes away from the Democratic candidate," added Mr. Knight, whose organization is an affiliate of Concerned Women for America (CWA).
Their list of grievances is long, but right now social conservatives are mad over what many consider the president's failure to strongly condemn illegal homosexual "marriages" being performed in San Francisco under the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Top religious rights activists have been burning up the telephone lines, sharing what one privately called their "apoplexy" over Mr. Bush's failure to act decisively on the issue, although he has said he would support a constitutional amendment if necessary to ban same-sex "marriages."
...
Religious conservatives helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency in the 1980s and helped Republicans retake the House and Senate in 1994, but complain that they have little to show for their loyalty to the GOP.
"I'm not blaming the president, but religious conservatives have been doing politics for 25 years and, on every front, are worse off on things they care about," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values. "The gay rights movement is more powerful, the culture is more decadent, the life of not one baby has been saved, porn is in the living room, and you can't watch the Super Bowl without your hand on the off switch."
Does anyone remember when the left was furious with Clinton for selling out to the Republicans on welfare reform? Yup. Bush is doing what Clinton did so well--triangulation. He is going just far enough to the left to make the middle happy.
Who To Blame For Faulty Intelligence?
As I have pointed out in the past, it would appear that even Hussein believed that he had WMDs--at least, he was paying people to build them for him. Now it appears that at least some faulty intelligence came from an organization that had its own reasons for wanting Hussein out of power, the Iraqi National Congress:U.S. officials said last week that one of the most celebrated pieces of false intelligence, the claim that Saddam had mobile biological-weapons laboratories, had come from a major in the Iraqi intelligence service made available by the INC.
I can understand why the INC might have felt that lying to get Hussein removed was worth it, and Chalabi, one of the INC leaders, admitted as much in that same article:
U.S. officials at first found the information credible, and the defector passed a lie-detector test. But in later interviews it became apparent that he was stretching the truth and had been "coached by the INC."
He failed a second polygraph test, and intelligence agencies were warned that the information was unreliable in May 2002. During an interview, Mr. Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled U.S. intelligence.
"We are heroes in error," he said in Baghdad on Wednesday. "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful.
"Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."
The Glories of a Refractor
Last night was the first really good night for observing in many months. It was cold, of course, but only about freezing. The sky was completely clear, although there was a lot of moisture impairing transparency. I was able to put the Televue Ranger and the Photon Instruments refractors side-by-side on the same objects, without the sound of chattering teeth distracting me. The Photon Instruments has a huge advantage in aperture--127mm vs. 70mm--but the Televue Ranger is about as good as it gets without being an apochromatic refractor.
On Venus: both showed gruesome purple halos, with the Ranger perhaps having some slight advantage. Venus, of course, shows a gibbous image right now, and there is no detail--just blinding white clouds.
On Saturn: the Photon Instruments showed at least one cloud band on the planet, as well as a clear and unmistakable Cassini Division in the rings. The Ranger showed no detail on the planet, and the Cassini Division was more implied than clearly visible. In both cases, image quality started to break down at high power. The Ranger image broke down at 120x; the Photon Instruments broke down at 229x. The limitation here, I think, was the seeing (mostly transparency).
Star testing: I remain convinced that the Photon Instruments is undercorrected, about 1/3 wave. Oddly enough, I was unable to get diffraction rings out of the Ranger. I suspect that I need more magnification than I can get without using a Barlow.
Orion Nebula (M42): The Photon Instruments gave a lovely image at 127x. I couldn't see any of the E, F, G, or H stars fo the Trapezium (nor should I), but A, B, C, and D were crisp and flicker-free. The lack of tube currents in a refractor, I am beginning to think, has a lot to do with the superior image quality that refractors have for their size. With only 127mm of aperture, the Photon Instruments is certainly no deep sky telescope, but within its limitations, it does a fine job.
I pulled out the 8" reflector as well, to see how it compares on Saturn. Unfortunately, it seems to be out of collimation, and the batteries on my new laser collimator are dead. I don't know if the problem was having left it on, or being out in the cold aggravated battery death. Saturn was certainly not impressive because of the collimation problems. (This is also one of my objections to reflectors--the need to collimate them often.) One odd aspect, however, is how much whiter Saturn is in the reflector than it is in the Photon Instruments refractor, where it is a yellow color. I don't mean that Saturn is brighter in the reflector--it is actually a different color.
How Many Gay Couples Are There? Bad Links
Instapundit links to Nick Schulz's column about gay marriage. Nick Schulz quotes Virginia Postrel: But the libertarian writer Virginia Postrel touched on another dynamic at work, one that captures why a lot of self-described conservatives haven't lost a lot of sleep over the gay marriage debate. On her personal website she recently linked to an Associated Press article that pointed out the following:
THere's a problem, however. When you go to Postrel's website, you find: "Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent."
Postrel went on to say that this "helps explain why DC conservatives, including the president, tend to squirm when their base demands condemnation of gay marriage and gays in general: If you work in Washington, you inevitably have gay friends, many of whom are de facto married." The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that only full marriage rights for single-sex couples, not Vermont-style civil unions, satisfy the state constitution's demand for legal equality. With a Massachusetts senator the Democratic frontrunner, and Bush desperate to avoid the issue, this could get nasty.
The problem is that the AP news story contains no such statistics. Furthermore, I am skeptical that these statistics are even close to possible. For example, this news story reports on 2000 census data on homosexual couples:
The AP story linked above ends with some interesting statistics:To date, the Census Bureau has reported that there are 479,107 same-sex couples sharing a household. This number will rise when data from all 50 states is released. The missing states are New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Arkansas.
San Francisco is, if not the most gay-friendly city in America, certainly in the top five. It has one of the highest concentrations of gay people in the U.S.--and even there, only 2.7% of the population are gay couples. Contrary to Postrel's claim that 1.4 percent of Californian households are gay couples, the actual number--92,138 same-sex couples in California, multiplying by two to get the number of people, and dividing by California's population--comes to about 0.55% of the population. I am very skeptical of the rest of the statistics that Postrel is quoting. I suspect that someone is looking at same-sex households, and assuming that these are all gay couples. They may well be roommates.
According to the latest census statistics released Wednesday, California and Vermont lead the nation with the highest percentage of gay couples, while San Francisco has nearly twice as many same-sex partners as any other county.
There are 92,138 same-sex couples in California, including 8,902 in San Francisco. In Vermont, 1,933 same-sex couples responded to the census. Gay and lesbian couples make up nearly 1 percent of total households reported in both states.
The census found that gay couples represent 2.7 percent of San Francisco's households. However, San Francisco's total gay population is closer to 10 percent, or 80,000 people, according to San Francisco pollster David Binder.
UPDATE: Volokh says that Postrel's data is correct, because the 1.4 percent is of all couples, not of the general population. (Yup, my mistake.) Postrel's link definitely doesn't point to an article containing the data. Here's the census data that Postrel should have cited. This would suggest, however, that one of the arguments for gay marriage--the supposed stability that legal marriage would provide--isn't much of an argument. Homosexuals are about 3% or so of the population--and about 1.4% of couples. Unsurprisingly, half of these same-sex couples are female, even though homosexual men outnumber lesbians by perhaps three times.
The Onion Has a Marvelous Satirical Piece
It's about the multimillionaire gigolo's campaign to protect ordinary Americans from that rich guy George Bush:ANCASTER, PA?Democratic frontrunner Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) began a seven-day, eight-state whistle-stop tour Monday, addressing a group of Frigidaire factory workers from the all-teak deck of his 60-foot luxury motor cruiser.
"George W. Bush put tax cuts for the wealthy and special favors for the special interests before our economic future," Kerry told the crowd gathered below the starboard side of The Real Deal II. "I will fight to restore the three million jobs that have been lost on the president's watch. It's time America got back to work."
Equal Protection Claims in San Francisco
I certainly don't claim to have any detailed knowledge of the California Constitution's equal protection clause, but at first glance, it appears that even in the much more serious situation of someone being sent to prison, California's courts seem pretty willing to defer to the Legislature in deciding whether a distinction between two classes is legitimate or not. This is from People v. Jones, 101 Cal. App. 4th 220 (2002):The Mills court noted that although section 290 requires registration by persons convicted of some sex offenses but not by persons convicted of other sex offenses, it is up to the Legislature "to determine the different degrees of gravity, of danger, to society from various types of sex offenses." (People v. Mills, supra, 81 Cal. App. 4th at p. 180.) The court explained that the Legislature's decision not to make certain sex offenses subject to registration "may be based upon the legislative determination a particular type of offender does not recidivate or recidivates less; some offenses, although touching upon sexual acts, are not so directly concerned or related to the type of conduct which is repetitive, recidivist, in nature." (Id. at p. 181.)
Obviously, this is a very different situation from the question of marriage (and mostly, I am posting this to start a conversation)--but I would think if anything, the courts would be less willing to defer to the Legislature on a criminal charge, where someone is going to go to prison--a far more serious consequence than an inability to get married.
The Mills court rejected as "unsubstantiated" the defendant's claim that his offense had a low rate of recidivism, explaining: "This is a disputable assertion best left with the Legislature for determination." (People v. Mills, supra, 81 Cal. App. 4th at p. 180.) The court concluded: "There is a rational basis for Penal Code section 290; to wit: a legitimate state interest in controlling crime and preventing recidivism by sex offenders. The fact all persons who in any way touch upon a violation of sexual mores or behavior are not included would indicate inferentially a legislative distinction is drawn. Mills does not carry his burden to establish the lack of rational relationship at least as to people who violate Penal Code section 288 and are thereby required to register." (Id. at p. 181.)
Of course, the real issue is whether the courts will decide that the statute adopted by the voters had a rational basis. As that same decision explained: We conclude that defendant failed to show that the Legislature had no rational basis for requiring persons convicted of violating section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) (oral copulation with a person under the age of 18) to register as sex offenders under section 290. Therefore, the statute does not offend equal protection as applied to defendant, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss defendant's current conviction.
It seems that to win on an equal protection claim, the defendant was required to establish that the Legislature's classification had no rational basis.
To some people, of course, any distinction based on the sex of the participants is prime facie irrational. But there are lots of distinctions in the marriage laws that would seem equally irrational: laws against incestuous marriages, and laws against polygamy. I can't see any reason why a law prohibiting same-sex marriage is intrinsically more irrational than laws against brother-sister, mother-son, father-daughter, or one guy, four women marriages.
And what's with this discrimination against animal marriage? What makes it irrational to define marriage to an animal as wrong? I know that some people will get really steamed, and say that animals aren't humans. Yeah--and your point is? What makes human relationships preferable to animal ones, without getting into that pesky notion of absolute morality?
UPDATE: At least part of the issue is whether marriage is a fundamental right. If so, strict scrutiny applies; if not, rational basis is enough, and the courts must defer to the judgment of the Legislature. The problem is, as another decision, People v. Alvarez, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1110 (2001), points out: In discussing the Olivas case, the court in People v. Bell n20 noted that "We find a lack of clarity and consistency in the cases dealing with the equal protection analysis of penal statutes. Olivas did not deal with a statute creating a crime but was concerned rather with a law which results in greater punishment for separate defendants convicted of the same crime in the same court based solely on the ages of the defendants. Still, Olivas states that liberty is a fundamental interest and requires that the strict scrutiny test be applied to equal protection claims when liberty is affected. Courts since Olivas have applied that concept narrowly . . . ."
This case upheld an enhanced penalty for use of a firearm in a crime, relative to another deadly weapon. What makes using a gun rather than a dagger worse? The argument is essentially this: The Martinez court rejected the defendant's contention, stating that other enhancement provisions, such as section 12022 (committing a felony with a firearm or deadly weapon) and section 12022.7 (infliction of great bodily harm), "may not be compared to section 12022.53, because they enhance the sentence for 'any felony,' whereas section 12022.53 is limited to designated felonies of a very serious type. . . . More significantly, the Legislature determined in enacting section 12022.53 that the use of firearms in commission of the designated felonies is such a danger that, 'substantially longer prison sentences must be imposed . . . in order to protect our citizens and to deter violent crime.' The ease with which a victim of one of the enumerated felonies could be killed or injured if a firearm is involved clearly supports a legislative distinction treating firearm offenses more harshly than the same crimes committed by other means, in order to deter the use of firearms and save lives."
I don't know about you, but this sounds like doubletalk to me. Yes, a firearm is deadlier than a knife, when used in a crime, but they aren't all that different in lethality.
It looks to me like the courts use "strict scrutiny" to strike down laws when convenient. As the decision admits, liberty is a fundamental right, and Alvarez's liberty was definitely at risk here. I can't see that there is anything rational about firearms enhancement relative to use of another deadly weapon. You could just as easily make the argument that promoting homosexuality by giving it equal status justifies treating it more harshly than heterosexuality. It would make about as much sense.
Should Chutzpah Be a Capital Crime?
I outraged by the chutzpah of this guy's notion of an appropriate punishment for what he did. First, the crime: Alan Walter Jr., one of eight friends accused of abducting, raping and drowning 13-year-old Maryann Measles in October 1997, pleaded guilty Thursday to six counts, including felony murder.
Horrifying crime, right? But this is shocking:
Under the plea agreement, Walter, who was originally charged with capital felony, will be spared the death penalty. Prosecutors are recommending a life sentence, which in Connecticut is 60 years in prison.
In addition to the felony murder count, Walter pleaded guilty to kidnapping, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, conspiracy to commit sexual assault and tampering with a witness.
Walter, 25, had given police a videotaped confession in which he demonstrated how he held the New Milford girl's head in the Housatonic River.
...
Measles was kidnapped outside a grocery store, and driven to the river's edge, according to court documents. Several members of the group beat Measles and dragged her into the van, where three of them raped her, according to the documents.
Measles was then drowned, Walter told police. He said that after Measles became unresponsive under the water, he took her out and had sex with her body. He told police that he and others then wrapped her up in the blanket and chains tied to a cinderblock, and threw her back into the water.
Walter told police that afterward the group went to a nearby marina "to smoke a bone," a reference to marijuana. He initially told police he thought he deserved about 300 hours of community service for his crime, but later revised that to two months in prison.
I am stunned by the savagery of the crime, and I am even more stunned that this monster would make either of these proposals with any expectation of being taken seriously. This sounds to me like someone who should never see the outside of a jail cell. He is so completely out of touch with civilized standards that he thought punishments this light might be a basis for negotiation.
Do You Remember Reagan's First Term?
When Reagan came to office in 1981, we were in a terrible economic situation. For all the whining about unemployment and a bad ecnomy we are hearing today, you would think this is an unprecedented situation. America was a much more unpleasant place to look for a job in the late 1970s than it is today. Even though the economic malaise was largely the result of previous administrations (both Democrat and Republican), the left called the economic hard times of 1981-83 "the Reagan recession." Yet, by 1984, the economy was recovering--and Walter Mondale, a Big Government liberal, went down to smashing defeat.
The situation is quite similar. The good times (built partly on dotcom and telecom startup delusions) came to an end in April of 2000, with the stock market beginning to fall. Bush took office when things were definitely not going well. We now know that there was some mild recovery--or at least, the bloodletting was starting to cool--when 9/11 happened--and the economy collapsed.
For the last few months, partly because of the tax cut, but partly (perhaps mostly) because the liquidation of unproductive assets is part of how recessions cure themselves, the economy is well into recovery. Today's news is that the leading indicators composite index is up, and new unemployment claims for the week ending February 14 are down: "the largest decline since the beginning of November...." There is enough time between now and November for this rising economy to put a lot of people back to work--and yet not enough time for the inevitable demand-pull increase in interest rates. I think Bush is going to win re-election, although it will be nip and tuck--the billionaires are pulling out all the stops to get their boy Kerry into the White House.
UPDATE: Here's a table from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing unemployment rates from 1975 (when I entered the workforce) to today:Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1975 9.0 9.1 9.1 8.6 8.3 9.1 8.7 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.5 1976 8.8 8.7 8.1 7.4 6.8 8.0 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.7 1977 8.3 8.5 7.9 6.9 6.4 7.5 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.5 6.0 7.1 1978 7.1 6.9 6.6 5.8 5.5 6.2 6.3 5.9 5.8 5.4 5.6 5.7 6.1 1979 6.4 6.4 6.1 5.5 5.2 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.8 1980 6.9 6.8 6.6 6.7 7.1 7.8 7.9 7.6 7.2 7.1 7.1 6.9 7.1 1981 8.2 8.0 7.7 7.0 7.1 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.9 8.3 7.6 1982 9.4 9.6 9.5 9.2 9.1 9.8 9.8 9.6 9.7 9.9 10.4 10.5 9.7 1983 11.4 11.3 10.8 10.0 9.8 10.2 9.4 9.2 8.8 8.4 8.1 8.0 9.6 1984 8.8 8.4 8.1 7.6 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.3 7.1 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.5 1985 8.0 7.8 7.5 7.1 7.0 7.5 7.4 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.7 7.2 1986 7.3 7.8 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.0 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.3 7.0 1987 7.3 7.2 6.9 6.2 6.1 6.3 6.1 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.4 6.2 1988 6.3 6.2 5.9 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.0 5.5 1989 6.0 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.2 5.1 5.3 1990 6.0 5.9 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.5 5.9 6.0 5.6 1991 7.1 7.3 7.2 6.5 6.7 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.9 6.8 1992 8.1 8.2 7.8 7.2 7.3 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.3 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.5 1993 8.0 7.8 7.4 6.9 6.8 7.2 7.0 6.6 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.1 6.9 1994 7.3 7.1 6.8 6.2 5.9 6.2 6.2 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.3 5.1 6.1 1995 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.8 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.6 1996 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.4 1997 5.9 5.7 5.5 4.8 4.7 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.9 1998 5.2 5.0 5.0 4.1 4.2 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.5 1999 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.7 4.2 2000 4.5 4.4 4.3 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.7 4.0 2001 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.4 4.7 2002 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.7 5.5 6.0 5.9 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.8 2003 6.5 6.4 6.2 5.8 5.8 6.5 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.4 6.0 2004 6.3
John Kerry, Enemy of Special Interests
Shockingly enough, the Los Angeles Times (free registration required) is running this story: Sen. John F. Kerry sent 28 letters in behalf of a San Diego defense contractor who pleaded guilty last week to illegally funneling campaign contributions to the Massachusetts senator and four other congressmen.
Now, there's no evidence that Kerry knew the contributions were illegal--but this is exactly the sort of special interest politics that Kerry claims to oppose.
Members of Congress often write letters supporting constituent businesses and favored projects. But as the Democratic presidential front-runner, Kerry has promoted himself as a candidate who has never been beholden to campaign contributors and special interests.
Between 1996 and 1999, Kerry participated in a letter-writing campaign to free up federal funds for a guided missile system that defense contractor Parthasarathi "Bob" Majumder was trying to build for U.S. warplanes.
Majumder's firm, Science and Applied Technology Inc., was paid more than $150 million to design and develop the program in the 1990s. But the program ran into some stumbling blocks at the Pentagon.
Kerry's letters were sent to fellow members of Congress — and to the Pentagon — while Majumder and his employees were donating money to the senator, court records show. During the three-year period, Kerry received about $25,000 from Majumder and his employees, according to Dwight L. Morris & Associates, which tracks campaign donations.
Court documents say the contractor told his employees they needed to make political contributions in order for him to gain influence with members of Congress. He then reimbursed them with proceeds from government contracts.
Amusing Description of Howard Dean's Campaign
From one of the comments over at Lucianne.com: Dean was the perfect dot-com candidate, all hype with tons of start up money but no substance. This combination led to his top-fuel dragster like acceleration to oblivion.
Viacom CEO Capable Of Learning; the Virtues of Rolled Up Newspapers Against the Snout
From the New York Post: BESIEGED Viacom president Mel Karmazin read the riot act to execs of all 180 Infinity radio stations yesterday - including Howard Stern's in New York - telling them they'll be fired if they violate the company's new "zero tolerance" policy on obscenity.
Yes, you can call me narrow-minded, prudish, whatever you like. I have caught Howard Stern's late night TV show a few times, and I was really impressed. I guess it doesn't surprise me that Stern has an audience for stuff like this--I just didn't think there were enough drunken, out of control teenaged boys to keep a show like that on the air. (Let me emphasize: I am sure that there are many drunken, out of control teenaged boys with far too much taste to watch a show like Stern's.)
...
Infinity is home to Stern and several other controversial radio shows that have been canceled, fined or suspended for sexual hijinks - including Opie & Anthony after the infamous sex-in-St. Pat's contest.
Last evening after the conference call, Infinity execs issued a blunt memo to all personnel.
"Any station airing programming that has any sexual or excretory content needs to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that the programming is not even arguably indecent," the memo said.
"When in doubt, leave it out," said the memo, which also ordered all stations to install programming-delay units for on-the-fly censoring "immediately."
Stations were told to seek "advance consultation with counsel" if they have questions about anything "graphic or explicit."
This strict, new policy would appear to put the kibosh on several regular features of Howard Stern's show - who wasn't mentioned yesterday and who is on vacation this week - including "small penis" contests and bits wherein items are placed in, or expelled from, the most intimate of bodily areas.
I expect that some of you are also going to tell me, "If you don't like it, change the channel." I will take you seriously when your henchmen at the ACLU stop trying to remove the Ten Commandments from public parks because it is offensive: Plaintiff Sue Mercier is a resident of La Crosse, Wisconsin and a member of plaintiff Freedom from Religion Foundation. When visiting her lawyer’s office, which is near the monument site, plaintiff Mercier must sometimes alter her route to avoid seeing the monument. She shops at the People’s Food Coop and the farmers’ market less often than she would if the monument were not in Cameron Park. When she has viewed the monument, it has “disturbed” her emotionally.
Plaintiff Elizabeth Ash is a resident of La Crosse. She does not attend meetings or events held in Cameron Park because she does not want to view the monument. She does not use banks near the monument. When driving downtown, she avoids streets that would take her past the monument. She has stopped going to Cameron Park to sit in it and read books. When she does see the monument, she feels marginalized and has experienced physical pain.[emphasis added]
Yale Law School
On those occasions when I think about going to law school, I read articles like this one, and cringe: Federalist Society Vice-President Nick Muzin LAW '05 said he did not consider himself to be particularly conservative before coming to the Law School; he said he even worked for the Gore/Lieberman Presidential Campaign in 2000. But he said he feels far to the right of the politics of many Law School students.
And this is the right wing at Yale Law School? Compared to most of America, Muzin is firmly in the liberal camp.
"I would say I'm a centrist, but when I got to law school I found myself to be conservative [by comparison]," Muzin said. "I find that the student body here is ultra-liberal and extremely intolerant; I realized it shortly after I started here."
...
Muzin said he considered unnecessary protests by Law School students against military recruitment policies at a career day in the fall, when he was interviewing with several law firms. Muzin said while he supports the rights of gays to join the military, he had not planned that a protest of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be the backdrop to his interviews."My larger concern is I feel that the law school is really marginalizing itself -- they're fighting for causes that were already lost 30 years ago," Muzin said. "I think they're really doing a disservice to their students, producing students who will not be leaders in mainstream America."
I really wish that this was true. In one sense, Muzin is right: these causes were already lost 30 years ago among the people. But what the majority wants isn't really particularly relevant in the post-Lawrence world, where judges get to rewrite history to suit their preferences about what the law should be. If enough judges want it--and Yale Law School graduates are going to be disproportionately represented among federal judges--that's all that really matters.
Thanks to David Bernstein for the link; he remarks that he was apparently ostracized for a controversial statement he made in Contracts class at Yale. As a former fellow student related it to Bernstein: "I don't remember Contracts class being that controversial; we didn't discuss any of the truly hot button issues for the left--such as race, abortion, gay rights--in Contracts--and, in any event, my (libertarian) views on such issues wouldn't have been so objectionable to them, anyway. So what did I say in Contracts class that led to my ostracism?" He said, and I swear he seemed at least 80% serious, "well, you kept saying that contracts should be enforced!"
This is really scary.
Illegal Immigration & Temporary Worker Programs
I received this article from a group called the Center for Immigration Studies. I don't know anything about them, but it is pretty obvious that they think Bush's proposal for a temporary worker program, like the Bracero programs of the past, would be bad for low wage American workers. You can read a short history of these programs here.
Obviously, you have to regard anything from an advocacy group with a certain amount of care, but I don't see anything obviously absurd in it, and much that fits with my knowledge of the effects of large scale immigration in other periods of American history:The heart of the problem is that guestworker programs seek to reconcile two sharply conflicting goals: the need to protect citizen workers from the competition of foreign workers who are willing to work for wages and in conditions that few citizens would tolerate versus the wishes of some employers who rely on labor intensive production and service techniques to secure a plentiful supply of low cost workers. In addition, there are always unforeseen side effects that harm the wider society.
Another article from that same group, written by a former federal prosecutor, points out the combination of groups that encourage illegal immigration:
With 34 million low-wage workers in the current civilian labor force, the problem to confront is not a shortage of low skilled workers; it is the oversupply of from 9-12 million illegal immigrants that needs to be addressed. Getting illegal immigrants out of the labor force should be the first order of business for policymakers. Neither guestworker programs or amnesties of any kind should be part of the necessary efforts to end this labor market nightmare. Business interests dependent on an unending flow of cheap, exploitable, labor; immigrant groups intent on keeping the door open so that more of their relatives, friends, and countrymen would be allowed to enter; immigration lawyers who derive personal profit from the plight of immigrants; the politicians who rely on these interests groups for their continued reelection; all of these groups joined together to deprive INS of the resources and legal authority needed to implement the immigration laws in a coherent fashion.
I understand why Bush is pushing this temporary worker program. It gets him brownie points from those parts of our society that think illegal immigrants are a good idea; it releases political pressure for real reform in Mexico, something that might turn out to be a pretty bloody action; it buys him support from business interests who like having a cheap labor supply available.
What amazes me is how the Democrats keep talking about helping the little guys, but do nothing about a problem that is clearly depressing wages and reducing employment among unskilled and underskilled Americans. Is it possible that the votes bought by supporting illegal immigration exceeds the votes that Democrats could get by helping blue collar and pink collar American workers? If that is really the case, it is a terrifying statement about the number of illegals and their friends who actually vote in this country.
New Mexico, Breathalyzers, the ACLU, and Gun Control
I just received a very entertaining letter from Robert Racansky which he gave me permission to post here: February 18, 2004
American Civil Liberties Union
New Mexico Chapter
PO Box 80915
Albuquerque, NM 87198
(505) 266-5915
(800) 773-5706 (outside Albuquerque)
aclunm@swcp.com
http://www.aclu-nm.org/
http://www.aclu-nm.org/legal-panel.htm
KRQE-13's web site has a story about a new bill requiring breathalyzer ignition interlocks in every vehicle in New Mexico, at http://www.krqe.com/expanded2.asp?RECORD_KEY%5bBigLocalAdvanced%5d=ID&ID%5BBigLocalAdvanced%5D=3247Some state lawmakers are convinced they have the answer to solve the D.W.I. epidemic and want to require everyone on the road to take a breathalyzer test before they can start the engine of any vehicle.
Welcome to my world.
Today, the proposal is one very large step closer to becoming law.
A bill requiring an ignition interlock device be installed on every car, truck, bus or motorcycle in New Mexico passed the state house today and is on its way to the senate.
[snip]
The bill also has perked the ears and raised concern at the local chapter
of the American civil liberties union.
“We are concerned that if you've got to sort of go through a mini search every time you drive your car,” says Reber Boult. “That’s very invasive.”
As one of the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country, I have to go through a background check, and wait for government permission, every time I purchase a firearm. Such background checks could be described as "a mini search" that's "very invasive."
I don't have to do this because guns are more dangerous than cars.
There are about 220 million vehicles in the United States [1].
There are about 250 million guns in the United States [2].
From 1999 to 2001, there were 130,215 motor vehicle related fatalities, or 43,000 motor vehicle related deaths per year [3].
From 1999 to 2001, there were 87,110 firearms related fatalities, or 29,000 firearms related deaths per year.
This means there are about 20 deaths per 100,000 vehicle per year, and 12 deaths per 100,000 guns per year.
A given car or truck is 1.7 times more likely to be involved in a fatality than any given gun is. It should also be noted that, unlike automobile deaths, 60% of the people killed by gunshot wounds chose to end their own life. With an automobile, there is rarely an intent to cause death. Yet vehicles are still involved in more deaths -- both in terms of absolute numbers and per-unit -- than firearms are.
Unlike the privilege to drive, the right to "keep and bear arms" is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. While claiming to be "neutral" on the issue of gun rights, the ACLU has stated that "If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns [4]." While I had always hoped that the "license guns like cars" argument would lead to broader rights for gun owners (since vehicle licensing and registration is actually very lenient compared to gun control laws), I shouldn't be surprised that vehicle regulations are instead becoming more strict.
Of course, it is the ACLU's position thatour view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty [5].
I'm not exactly sure what it is your organization stands for. As your president said, it's not Constitutional rights.
So please don't be surprised if those of us who have been told for years to accept "reasonable" and "common sense" restrictions on our rights don't give a flying rat's ass about what you believe to be an erosion of civil liberties in this country. Since I have gotten used to it and stopped caring, I believe everyone else can too.
Quit your whining. And get with the program, citizen.
1. Center for Transportation Analysis. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Transportation Data Energy Book. Edition 23. 2003.
Table 3.1 "Automobile Registrations for Selected Countries, 1950 - 2001"
Table 3.2 "Truck and Bus Registrations for Selected Countries, 1950 - 2001"
http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb23/Edition23_Chapter03.pdf
2. Worldwatch Institute
"Matters of Scale: January/February 1998"
http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/mag/1998/111/mos/
Worldwatch claims that this is an FBI estimate, but does not cite a source.
See also Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Controls (1997)
Table 3.1 "Size of the U.S. Civilian Gun Stock" (pp. 96 - 97).
Kleck estimated 236 million guns as of 1994.
250 million seems a reasonable extrapolation.
3. All fatality figures from the Centers for Disease Control WISQARS data base at
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
2001 is the latest year for which data is currently available.
4. American Civil Liberties Union
"Gun Control"
Policy Practices
March 4, 2002
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25
5. Nadine Strossen
President
American Civil Liberties Union
"Life, Liberty, and the ACLU"
Reason October 1994
http://reason.com/Strossen.shtml
Interesting New Specialty Blog
It's called The Argus, and specializes in watching Central Asia and the Caucasus region, by a guy who spent time there, and has considerable interest in the region, its culture, and people. In his own words: I served in Peace Corps Uzbekistan from 2000 until the program was evacuated in September 2001. I taught English at the Navoi Academic Lyceum for a handful of hours every week and spent the rest of my time rapidly losing weight, taking long "business lunches," harassing police officers, and making fun of tourists.
This captures something of the flavor of the blog--a mixture of serious and humorous commentary on events of the day (rather like my blog, but with slightly stronger language), while still specializing on the specified topics.
Now, the observant reader will notice that this is also one of my new advertisers. Let me emphasize that if The Argus had come to my attention in some other manner, I would still be telling you about it. I noticed it, of course, because before I accept an ad on my blog, I make sure that they aren't selling something utterly horrifying or repulsive. (Sorry, but "South of Market Dirt Scene Cruise & Virus Exchange" is going to have to advertise somewhere else--say, Six Foot Pole. I wouldn't encourage you to click that link. The language, hatred, and immaturity are...unpleasant.)
It does raise an interesting question: what happens if the most effective way to get some of the traffic from high volume sites is to advertise through blogads.com, instead of the more polite and generous methods that have worked until now? I suppose that I could advertise somewhere like Instapundit, take advantage of the Instalanche that results, while people down the food chain from my blog enjoy the echoes of the Instalanche. I am reminded of an interesting account of hallucinogen use in 18th century Siberia, described in some book that I read. The story is somewhat gross, so you might want to avert your eyes if the mildly scatalogical offends.
It seems that the local tribes had discovered a plant with hallucinogenic properties. The hallucinogen was both rare enough (and thus expensive) and sufficiently strong that even after being passing through the kidneys, some of the hallucinogen remained. There was thus a market for the urine of those who had consumed the planet--and for the urine of those who drank the urine of those who consumed the planet. The hallucinogen remained psychoactive even unto the fourth generation of urine. Will blog ads to generate traffic be the Siberian hallucinogenic urine of our time?
A Sad Story of AIDS--And Someone Who At Least Knew What Caused His Preferences
From the Utah Deseret News: Years after her life was played out on the TV screen like a reality show, the sequel to Kim Smith's story plays on without the cameras.
Kim Smith gives Tony, 22, a hug as younger son Parker, 19, laughs in the background. ...
Her husband Steve lies in a Sandy cemetery. His violin is in the closet. His backyard garden is covered with snow. The greenhouse, where he nursed orchids and tropical plants and cacti, is neglected and dying.
The symbolism is not lost on Kim.
"It's very poignant," she says as she surveys the scene. "When I sit out here, I think about all the good things, or I get frustrated because I remember what was and what is."
It has been nearly two years since "The Smith Family" documentary aired on public television to much acclaim, and everyone who meets Kim wants to know what has happened in the intervening years.
...
Kim has returned to a life of normalcy, or as much normalcy as there can be for a woman who discovered one day that her husband had not only been having affairs but he was having them with men, then later discovered she was HIV positive, then nursed her husband until he died of AIDS.
...
The house in Sandy has reminders of their husband and father — pictures, artwork, his violin, the yard. In the family room, there is a statue of a naked couple standing in a passionate embrace. The statue was a gift from Kim to Steve on their ninth wedding anniversary in 1987. "It feels like we felt," she says.
But in some ways it was wishful thinking. They spent a happy day together celebrating their anniversary, but when night came "there was no Hollywood ending," she says.
It was an old source of contention. For years he had showed infrequent interest in her in the bedroom, although Kim says they were always affectionate and deeply in love. The next morning she raised the issue again, as she had so many times over the years.
"Steve, there's something wrong here," she said. "I don't know what it is, but it can't be all me."
Then he dropped the bombshell. He had been having affairs with strangers — men. He told her about being abused by a stranger as a youth, which he considered the cause of his behavior.
Syria Gets The Message
Instapundit points to this story from the Guardian, and seems to imply that Syria's interest in resuming talks with Israel might be driven by the recent "tyrant cleansing" that took place next door.
Nah. Must just be a coincidence.
Remarkable: A Poll That Understands the Electoral College!
A number of polls have come out in recent days showing that either Kerry is double digits ahead of Bush, or five points behind Bush, or neck and neck. The last of these polls, however, has perhaps the most signficant numbers of all: A new poll conducted by Zogby International for The O’Leary Report and Southern Methodist University’s John Tower Center from February 12-15, 2004 of 1,209 likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points found that if the election for president were held today, Democrat John Kerry would edge George W. Bush 46% to 45% in the “blue states” – or states won by Al Gore in the 2000 election. In the “red states,” or states won by George W. Bush in 2000, however, Bush wins handily by a 51% to 39% margin.
Think long and hard about this: Bush only has to win the "red states" to win re-election--and it appears that he has these states locked up. Kerry's lead in the "blue states" is within the margin of error. There are a bunch of states that Bush doesn't even have to campaign in (say, Idaho, where I live). This means that any state where he has a ten point lead over Kerry doesn't require any significant campaign expenditures. He can spend that money on the "blue states" where the race is tight.
It is going to take a lot of money from Red China, George Soros, and the rest of the billionaire leftists for Kerry to hold his "blue states." Unlike the 1996 and 2000 elections, our government is watching money flows very carefully, because of terorrism funding concerns. I can't imagine tens of millions of dollars wandering into the Kerry campaign from overseas without being seen. Unlike the 1996 and 2000 elections, the Bush Administration has no reason to close their eyes to Red China's efforts to buy the White House for a Democrat.
Before you wonder if the Saudi government might try to buy the White House for Bush--I've thought about that, and I suspect at this point the Saudi royal slimocracy would probably prefer Kerry by now. Bush seems intent on "destabilizing" the Middle East by infecting Iraq with the liberal democracy virus.
What's The Opposite Of Indecisive?
That's the only way to describe the father of Alex Polier, alleged Kerry adultress. On Friday he was quoted as calling Kerry a "sleazeball" that he wouldn't want his daughter around, and that he wouldn't vote for Kerry. On Monday:Terry Polier pledged to vote for the super-rich Democrat after daughter Alex, 27, publicly insisted she had not had a fling with him.
Okay, the United Kingdom's Sun isn't exactly a high quality paper, with those infamous Page 3 girls (definitely not women, or womyn, or wimmin). Still, you wonder: was it a carrot ("Here's $100,000 to make yourself look incredibly stupid for making completely opposite statements between Friday and Monday") or a threat ("We know where you live")?
Personally, I don't care all that strongly if Kerry and Alex Polier committed adultery or not. Kerry is an elected official, and therefore I find almost any immoral act by him readily imaginable. What I do find disturbing is how rapidly "little people" can make a 180 degree turn when it suits the needs of America's wealthiest gigolo.
Is This a Parody of California Gun Control Laws?
I'm afraid not. The New Mexico lower house has passed a bill requiring every vehicle in the state to have a breathalyzer installed. Now, if they had imposed this requirement on people convicted of drunk driving as a punishment or condition of probation, that would be perfectly reasonable. If they had imposed this as a lifelong punishment for drunk driving, I would say that they had gone too far. But imposing it on every vehicle in the state?
What next? A mandatory breathalyzer interlock chastity belt to prevent rapes by drunks?
If this had been one legislator's pipe dream, I would ignore it. It almost reads like a parody of California's assault weapons ban (which similarly assumes that the only solution to gun crime is to treat everyone like a criminal). But this bill passed the lower house? What sort of fools do they elect there? This is almost Californian in its arrogant refusal to discriminate between criminals and law-abiding.
Thanks to Eugene Volokh for the link.
Advertising With Blogads; Bridal Magazines as Pornography
I was hoping that advertisers would flock to the opportunity to advertise on my blog, knowing what an important and influential crowd reads this. Besides, if advertising put some money in my pocket, I wouldn't have to nag my readers to throw money into the PayPal tip jar. (Thanks to those who do.) But it appears that advertisers don't particularly want to sell my readers anything. I am crushed; you should all feel insulted that you aren't important enough for advertisers.
Anyway, feel free to throw some money into the PayPal tip jar. My daughter is aiming at a June wedding, and this will cost a bit. I suppose it could be worse; she tells me that one of the bridal magazines that she reads tells of a bride who took pride in her self-restraint. "I only spent $2000 on flowers." Hmmm. Sounds like someone has more money than she needs.
Bridal magazines, unfortunately, are selling a princess fantasy to young women. My daughter's fiance refers to them as "chick pornography," and it is a pretty apt analogy. Like pornography, everything is perfect: the brides are beautiful; the grooms are hunks; the honeymoon is in an exotic location; entire counties must have been cut for the flowers. Also like pornography, bridal magazines don't convey the real costs, with typical weddings costing $20,000 and up. Imagine what taking half of that money and using it as a down payment for a house would do to improve the lives of the young couple. What troubles me are the number of weddings where the bills haven't been paid off before the divorce.
UPDATE: You'll notice that advertising is now appearing on my blog! Yahoo! Paying customers! And to my surprise, not from the RNC, or the Human Rights Campaign. :-)
Yes, Just Like The Rest of Us: I Could Not Make This One Up
This article from the San Francisco Chronicle really captures the weirdness of the culture: First, there was the term "homosexual," then "gay" and "lesbian," then the once taboo "dyke" and "queer."
Now, all bets are off.
With the universe of gender and sexual identities expanding, a gay youth culture emerging, acceptance of gays rising and label loyalty falling, the gay lexicon has exploded with scores of new words and blended phrases that delineate every conceivable stop on the identity spectrum -- at least for this week.
Someone who is "genderqueer," for example, views the gender options as more than just male and female or doesn't fit into the binary male-female system. A "trannydyke" is a transgender person (whose gender is different than the one assigned at birth) attracted to people with a more feminine gender, while a "pansexual" is attracted to people of multiple genders. A "boi" describes a boyish gay guy or a biological female with a male presentation; and "heteroflexible" refers to a straight person with a queer mind-set.
The list of terms -- which have hotly contested definitions -- goes on: "FTM" for female to male, "MTF" for male to female, "boydyke," "trannyboy, " "trannyfag," "multigendered," "polygendered," "queerboi," "transboi," "transguy," "transman," "half-dyke," "bi-dyke," "stud," "stem," "trisexual," "omnisexual," and "multisexual."
"The language thing is tricky," said Thom Lynch, the director of the San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center. "I feel sorry for straight people."
Tricky, maybe, but also healthy and empowering, said Carolyn Laub, the director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, which links gay and lesbian student clubs in the state.
"We in society and in our generation are developing new understandings of sexual orientation and gender identities and what that means to us," she said. "We don't really have enough language to describe that; therefore, we have to create new words."
...
These days, "queer" is especially handy because it's vague enough to encompass just about everyone. The word and its newfangled linguistic cousins have become indispensable as the transgender population in the Bay Area has grown exponentially -- into the tens of thousands, advocates say -- and sexual identities have become increasingly complicated.
"If you're not a man or woman, words like 'gay' or 'lesbian' don't fit you anymore," said Sam Davis, founder of United Genders of The Universe, a support group and speakers bureau. "The words from just a few years ago aren't adequate to talk about who we are, where we're coming from and who we like."
Dee Braur, a 17-year-old with a tuft of greenish hair, calls herself "half-dyke." "I'm bisexual but I lean more toward women than men," she said. Men, she added, annoy her.
"Trisexual" also works, she said with a snicker: "I'll try anything once and if I like it, I'll try it again and again and again."
Andy Duran, 19, said: "People are feeling like, what's the point of labeling? If I must label, let me create my own."
That said, Duran uses "queer" -- among others -- because "it's the one that leaves the most for discovery. ... It's not really limiting. I can date a woman or a man. I can date someone who's transgender or genderqueer."
Tiffany Solomon, who is 19 and technically a lesbian, is put off by the word "lesbian."
"I think of a shorthaired woman who wears flannel. It's bad to a degree, but it's something that becomes embedded when you're young and queer and look on TV and you only have stereotypes to go on," she said. She calls herself a "metrosexual" -- the word used to describe straight men who have a gay sensibility when it comes to fashion and grooming -- because she also identifies with gay male culture.
Justin, who is 19 and didn't want to use his last name because he's not out to his family as transgender, calls himself a "boi" -- with an "i" -- because he feels like a boy -- with a "y" -- but "I don't have the boy parts, as much as I wish I did."
...
Lynn Breedlove, a musician and author, spent years as a "butch dyke," but nowadays, he prefers to interchange pronouns and, depending on his mood, goes back and forth between the old label and "trannyboy." "Because I'm like Peter Pan -- eternally youthful but I'm always played by a girl," Breedlove said. "It's more a faggy aesthetic thing. I don't want hair on my face and chest. Ooh, I don't want to be transman -- that sounds really furry."
Bush v. Kerry Polling Results: Is Bush's Triangulation Strategy Necessary?
This recent survey shows that Bush is now five points ahead of Kerry among likely voters. What I find interesting is that a previous survey by the same organization shows that "64% prefer smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes." No matter what you might say in Kerry's defense, he is definitely a big government with more services and higher taxes sort of liberal. I suspect that all Bush is going to have to do is run ads showing Kerry's liberalism, and the gap won't be 5%, but 15%, in very short order.
NBC News Covers Kerry's Involvement With Chinese Communist Influence Peddlers
This has been covered by conservatives, but I guess it's a story too big to ignore, so even NBC is reporting on it: Senator John Kerry, D-MA, unwittingly tried to help a Chinese espionage agent and arms dealer in 1996 in return for campaign contributions for his Senate reelection campaign, according to congressional and other documents, interviews, and photographs.
Well worth reading the entire article. I don't think anyone believes that Kerry is some sort of Chinese agent, but when Kerry talks about the evil influence of special interest money--well, perhaps this isn't just book knowledge he's spouting.
advertisement
The arms dealer, the daughter of the man who was then the second-highest ranking official in China's military, did not get what she wanted -- a listing for her company on a United States stock exchange -- but Kerry was able to get her a meeting at the Securities and Exchange commission, after a business associate of hers provided him with campaign contributions and the promise of more help.
The woman, Liu Chao Ying, worked in high ranking positions for two companies responsible for brokering one of the biggest and most controversial arms sales of the 1990's -- a $300-million missile deal with Pakistan. The two companies were sanctioned by the United States for their deals with Pakistan.
In 1996, Senator John Kerry was locked in a hard-fought and close reelection campaign with Massachusetts Governor William Weld. Kerry was the policy wonk, noted for his expertise in international crime, arms and drug dealing, and intelligence.
Although America's richest public servant -- married to a woman, Teresa Heinz, then worth an estimated $800-million -- he could not use that wealth in his campaign.
So, he relied on doing what every political candidate does: seeking big bucks contributions from people with deep pockets. And, in 1996, few had more money to burn than Johnny Chung, a Taiwanese-American entrepreneur from Artesia, California.
Chung gave $10,000 to Kerry's campaign -- most of it illegally -- hosted a fund-raising party in Beverly Hills, and threw in an extra $10,000 to honor Kerry at a Democratic Senate Campaign Committee event. Kerry eventually returned all the Chung money.
In return, Kerry opened a door for a friend of Chung: Liu Chaoying.
"Who is Colonel Liu?" asked William Triplett, a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer and author of two books on Chinese influence in US politics. "She began her military intelligence career with Chinese Navy intelligence. She has been, in succession, assistant to the President of the China National Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation and the China Great Wall Industries Corporation, both of whom have been sanctioned twice -- in 1991 and 1993 -- by the United States for ballistic missiles sales to Pakistan. She later became president of China Aerospace Industrial Holdings Ltd. and she made illegal campaign contributions to the Clinton Gore ticket and John Kerry in 1996."
San Francisco City Official Lawlessness
I mentioned a few days ago the problem of city officials in Babylon West ignoring state law. What other state laws do local officials get to ignore because they believe that it violates the state or federal constitutions?
If I were the sheriff somewhere like Lassen County or Modoc County, I would be very tempted to just ignore California's assault weapons law, start ordering them up on department letterhead, and then sell them to any resident of the county who passed the background check for firearms transfers in California. I mean, the sheriff could argue, and with as much accuracy, that the assault weapons law violates Article I, sec. 1 of the California Constitution: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Well let's see, "defending life and liberty" is pretty broad, isn't? There are circumstances where a rifle with detachable 20 round magazines would be quite useful for that purpose. Just because the state legislature has passed a law doesn't mean that local officials have to follow that law, does it? I mean, there's some room for disagreement about this, isn't there?
I really do not think homosexuals have thought this through very carefully. What other laws may local officials ignore if they find them distasteful? "We don't really think the legislature repealing the laws on homosexuality is consistent with the clear intent of Article I, sec. 4 concerning licentiousness."Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.
(No, I'm not actually claiming that this is a valid reading of Art. I, sec. 4, but it doesn't seem any sillier to me than the San Francisco Mayor's misreading of the equal protection clause.)
What if district attorneys in the more rural parts of California decided that gay men who get beat up for making a pass at a straight guy deserve what they get?
Another State Considers Amending Its State Constitution In Response To Judicial Activism
Mississippi: Sen. Alan Nunnelee, R-Tupelo, filed Senate Concurrent Resolution 514, which calls for an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as union between a man and a woman.
Mississippi already bans marriage for same-sex couples and does not recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states, but the amendment is designed to prevent legislators from changing the law in the future.
Sen. Billy Hewes, R-Gulfport, filed Senate Concurrent Resolution 519, which encourages the U.S. Congress to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as allowable only between a man and a woman.
Recent events in San Francisco and Massachusetts have touched off a firestorm of controversy on the issue of whether gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry.
The Continuing Scandal Involving the Catholic Church & Homosexuality
Also from the Independent: A priest was found dead two days after meeting a Roman Catholic bishop over a letter alleging the bishop was part of "a ring of homosexual priests".
It now appears that Minkler committed suicide. Why?
The Rev John Minkler, 57, was found dead on Sunday in his home in Watervliet, New York state. Police there did not say how or when he died.
The Bishop of Albany, Howard Hubbard, said on Monday: "He was very disturbed that his name was associated with this letter, and he wanted to assure me he was not its author."
The letter was written in 1995 but surfaced last week after a press conference with a lawyer who has represented alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests. The Albany diocese said Mr Minkler was identified as the author in a TV news report. It could find no letter in its files.
Last week Andrew Zalay claimed that Bishop Hubbard had abused his brother Thomas 30 years ago. Thomas committed suicide in 1978. Bishop Hubbard says he has never broken his vow of celibacy, and he has denied ever sexually abusing anyone. He says he has handled all claims of abuse seriously and dismissed abusive priests.
Here's another news account of this death that makes me wonder a bit: On Friday, the church announced that Minkler had disavowed authorship of the letter and had said he had never contacted the archdiocese. On Monday, they released Minkler's signed statement to that effect.
Here's a bit more from Newsday about the 1995 letter that seems to have led to at least one death (cause undetermined):
But the head of Roman Catholic Faithful, a Chicago-based group of conservative Catholics, disputed that account. Stephen Brady said Minkler had been working with him for three years to uncover homosexual activity in the Albany Diocese.
"Reverend Minkler was scared to death that the bishop would find out," said Brady, president of the group that opposes any weakening of church positions against homosexuality, birth control and abortion.
"He called me Saturday and left a message on my voice mail, saying, 'I need your help with Hubbard.' I was not able to get back with Father Minkler," Brady said.
Brady said Minkler wrote the letter, which was signed only as "Henry."
Copies of the letter were made public last week by Albany-area attorney John Aretakis.
Aretakis, who has represented dozens of victims of clergy sexual abuse and has accused the diocese of mistreating victims, ignited the controversy surrounding Hubbard at a Feb. 4 news conference at which he produced a typed, unsigned suicide note from a former mental patient who indicated a sexual relationship with Hubbard. He also arranged the Feb. 5 news conference at which Hubbard was accused of paying a teenage runaway for sex in the 1970s.Albany - A priest was found dead Sunday, two days after meeting with Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard over a 1995 letter alleging the bishop was part of "a ring of homosexual Albany priests."
The New York Post coverage is also disturbing. Although quoting an unnamed police official that there were indications that was suicide: "We've been apprised of Rev. Minkler's death and we're awaiting the results of the autopsy," said Albany District Attorney Paul Clyne.
This article also seems to imply that this was more than an allegation against Bishop Hubbard:
WRGB also quoted Clyne as saying that Minkler's death came "under strange circumstances that bear watching." The bishop said he was "stunned" by Minkler's death, and said the priest assured him as recently as Friday that he was not the source of criticism of Hubbard's handling of a series of child-abuse cases involving Albany priests.
Of course, conspiracies of silence involving powerful gay men and murder aren't new. See this coverage in the Bakersfield Californian, provoked by the murder of Assistant District Attorney Stephen M. Tauzer. The abstract gives you something of where this is going: Powerful gay men. Vulnerable teen-age boys. Murder. For years, some prominent local men who led secret lives were rumored to be protected. Whispers surrounding another important man's death prompt the question: Is there really a conspiracy?
"Child Molesters Aren't Homosexuals": More Interesting News From Britain
From the Independent: A man accused of nine counts of rape broke down in tears yesterday as he insisted he was not the "dangerous sexual predator" who had indiscriminately attacked women and girls across the south of England.
No conviction yet, but the rest of the article doesn't leave much doubt. Oh yes, what does this interesting paragraph mean?
In evidence punctuated with emotional outbursts, Antoni Imiela, a former railway worker, began his defence by explaining he had been homosexual most of his life.
In a double existence hidden from his wife, he cruised for male sex and picked up prostitutes, he said.
His wife, Christine, sat in the public gallery of Maidstone Crown Court, as her husband described a lengthy list of "usual gay places" where he went seeking sex and women he had paid for services in roadside encounters.
Mr Imiela, 49, denies nine counts of rape on five women and three girls - aged from 10 to 52 - as well as kidnapping, indecently assaulting and attempting to rape another child during an alleged 12-month campaign beginning November 2001.
Yesterday, on the 23rd day of the trial, Mr Imiela's barrister Rebecca Poulet QC questioned him about the first rape charge against him.
The prosecution claims he grabbed the 10-year-old girl, ignoring her "pitiful pleas" as he raped her, saying it would "only hurt for a while". Experts had assessed that there was a billion to one chance that DNA from semen found on her was not the defendant's.
With her parents sitting just feet away, Mr Imiela was asked how he would explain that piece of evidence to the jury of seven men and five women.
"I don't think they will believe me," he said, pausing to wipe away the tears. "It would be difficult to convince you it wasn't me. You can hang me for all I care. I didn't rape her."Mr Imiela, dressed in a grey suit, blue shirt and tie, leaned forward in the dock, often clasping tissues to his face as Mrs Poulet questioned him about a "significant" event when he was 14. His voice shaking, he pointed angrily at his own counsel and answered: "You said you wouldn't mention that."
What was this "significant" even when he was 14?
The barrister continued by asking him about his sexual history. "I have been gay for most of my life," said Mr Imiela, explaining that his longest relationship with a man had lasted two years from 1979. Asked if he had told his wife about it, he replied: "I once told her I was gay, but I think I made it out like I had been."
The Entertainment Industry: How Many Groups Can They Offend in One Month?
Apparently OutKast managed to upset Native Americans:LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- CBS television issued a new round of apologies, this time for any offense taken at the American Indian-motif Grammy Awards performance by the hip-hop group OutKast that some Native Americans have condemned as racist.
Here's the core problem: an industry that sees offending people as the highest purpose to which they can aspire. Yes, there's a lot of people that are a little too sensitive; but there are a lot of people in the entertainment industry that must sexualize everything.
The San Francisco-based Native American Cultural Center posted a notice on its Web site last week calling for a boycott of CBS, OutKast's label Arista Records, and the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, which sponsors the Grammys.
"It was the most disgusting set of racial stereotypes aimed at American Indians that I have ever seen on TV," NACC board member Sean Freitas said in the online statement. "It was on par with white people dancing sexually in black face, or yarmulkes ... I am shocked and outraged."
Humor
Some of this may not mean much to you if you don't live in Idaho, and know what the stereotypes are that being satirized here. Or maybe they will!Idaho Barbies
Barbie Dolls Inc. Announces The Release Today of Models of Limited Edition Barbie Dolls for the Idaho Market:
Sun Valley Barbie: This princess Barbie is only sold at Dillards. She comes with an assortment of Kate Spade handbags, a Lexus, a lapdog and a cookie cutter house. Options include tummy tuck, face lift, greenhouse, and a workaholic Ken.
Park Center Barbie: This trendy homemaker Barbie is available with the Lexus SUV or Ford Windstar minivan, gets lost easily, and has no full time occupation or secondary education. Traffic jamming cell phone sold separately. Optional matching gym outfit.
Nampa Barbie: This recently paroled Barbie comes with a 9 mm handgun, a Ray Lewis knife, a low-rider Chevrolet with oversized wheels and tinted windows and a Meth Lab Ken. Also available in a Mexican version.
East Boise Barbie: This yuppie Barbie comes with choice of a BMW sports car or a souped up Hummer 2, Starbucks cup, credit card and shallow Ken.
Kuna Barbie: This white-trash model comes in Wrangler jeans two sizes too small, a NASCAR shirt, big hair, a six pack of Coors Light and a Hank Williams, Jr. CD set. She can spit over 5 feet and she can kick Ken's tail when she's drunk. A pickup is available with Confederate flag bumper stickers.
North End Barbie: This Barbie actually comes in two variations. One has long gray hair and archless feet, sandals with white socks, no makeup and a mutt. The other version has frizzy hair, a dingy white tanktop, low cut jeans and scratch-n-sniff armpits.
Garden City Barbie: This tobacco chewing, brassy-haired Barbie still has not learned that you can't wear high-heeled sandals from Payless with no pedicure and without breaking a heel and falling while you chase your beer-gutted, hollow gold-chain-wearing boyfriend. Her make-up is dark red lip liner with lips covered in a sparkly pink color or no fill-in at all. Her ensemble includes low-rise acid-washed jeans with assorted colored G-strings that stick out the back of her jeans, a white barely-there see-through shirt. Her long, layered hair is bleached/highlighted and BIG. Accessories include: CD-player equipped with Bon Jovi, rusty old Ford pickup.
They are working on developing a "Caldwell Barbie", but she keeps getting shot.
Warm Springs Barbie: This True Blonde shops exclusively in Saks Fifth Avenue. She drives her Land Rover (sold separately). She has an MBA from Stanford but has never worked outside the home. Her child stroller is bigger than your house and her tennis trophies are discreetly hidden behind CEO Ken's golf trophies. She knows enough Spanish to talk with the nanny; Tagalog to speak to the cook; and Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean, to talk with the gardener, house painter, and housekeeper respectively. She is a lifelong member of the Junior League and her home is featured in Architectural Digest. Her family owns a winery in Napa, but she buys cases of "2-Buck Chuck" at Trader Joe's. Hence the need for the rear-loading Land Rover. Her dirty little secret?? She's a closet Democrat.
Why Libertarian Ideas Have Not Been All That Popular
Tyler Cowen at the Volokh Conspiracy points to Will Wilkinson's discussion of why libertarian ideas haven't been more successful. I would argue that libertarian ideas have not been more popular for the following reasons:
1. Americans are not generally very sympathetic to unpragmatic political philosophies. Some of this is because the best examples of highly idealistic political philosophies are socialism and Great Society welfare state liberalism. Both turned out to be failures because they were based on false assumptions about human nature.
Socialism (in the formal sense of government ownership of the means of production, not the welfare state liberalism that often calls itself socialism in Europe) was based on at least two incorrect assumptions.
a. Human beings can be consistently motivated by concern for the collective good.
b. Market prices are not necessary to rationally allocate resources.
Great society welfare state liberalism (which I distinguish from New Deal welfare state liberalism) failed because it made at least three incorrect assumptions.
a. Poverty was primarily caused by a shortage of money, not a shortage of values.
b. Subsidizing dependence would not increase the number of dependents.
c. Capitalism, rather than being the goose that lays the golden eggs that fund the welfare state, was something disreputable and contemptible that could be regulated and discouraged without endangering either the tax revenues that funded the welfare state, or the political will of the taxpayers to continue supporting the welfare state. (In some respects, Clinton's often corrupt relationship with capitalism was an attempt to get the goose laying golden eggs again.)
It might be that libertarian ideals are grounded on more realistic assumptions than socialism or Great Society welfare state liberalism, but I see a lot of the same "we've got an all-encompassing theory, and we're going to run with it" approach among libertarian ideologues that sank the more extreme forms of Great Society welfare state liberalism.
2. Libertarian hostility towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular. This is not intrinsic to libertarianism. It is true that there are some religions where such conflict is unavoidable; Islam simply has no notion of a state separate from religion, and seems to be persisting in the hostility towards interest that retarded Christianity until the Renaissance. A lot of libertarian hostility towards Christianity reflects both the Ayn Rand roots of much libertarian thought, as well as a tendency of American libertarians to define their ideology by how it is distinguished from American conservative thought (which has some strongly libertarian components to it).
American conservativism has been closely identified with Christianity simply because that has been the dominant religion of Americans from the very beginning of colonization. It seems to me that a lot of libertarians define themselves that way because they are either non-believers (and not just non-Christians), or because they are offended by the cultural baggage that they associate with American Christianity.
Once someone has divided himself away from conservatives because of reaction to the dominant religion of America, libertarian ideas are the logical political orientation. While hostility to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular will make you fit right in at faculty meetings, it won't get libertarian ideas much traction in a nation where the population still overwhelmingly defines itself as Protestant or Catholic.
3. For libertarian ideas to work in a society, there are a few necessary conditions. Some are obvious to libertarians, who take comfort that we live in a society where these conditions exist:
a. If not a well-educated population, at least one that isn't grossly ignorant. If you don't know that there are better jobs available in the next county, you are likely to be exploited by an employer, even in a free market.
b. If not fully equal opportunities for all, at least a rough approximation of this. A society where tradition means that many smart people are condemned to work in the mud, while dumb people run the society because of their birth, is terribly unjust, and unlikely to be economically successful. This is perhaps the reason that Latin America lagged behind after overthrowing their Spanish and Portguese masters, while the U.S. took off economically.
4. Libertarians tend to overlook several other characteristics of the real world, not just in America, but in lots of other places as well.
a. What do you do with the helpless and dependent? Yes, libertarian thought is supportive of private charity, but fails to recognize some disturbing historical problems. Part of why local governments in England were saddled with responsibility for the poor starting in Elizabeth I's reign was that Henry VIII's confiscation of the Catholic Church's property had destroyed one of the few institutions with the economic resources to care for the helpless and dependent.
I have had enough experience with private, community-based charity over the last few years to recognize that many of the fine ideas about charity that libertarians believe should solve the problem, simply don't work reliably enough. A village of 100 people knows who is suffering, and often has a pretty good of whether the problem is "unable to work" or "work gets in the way of his intoxicants." This doesn't work so well in a community of 100,000. It becomes difficult, without a bit of bureaucracy, to separate out the needy from the greedy. (Not that the current bureaucracies do this job very well, either--they just don't bother distinguishing the two classes of poor.)
b. There are some people who are helpless and dependent because of horrifying crimes--but there is no way to hold the criminal responsible. The libertarian answer is to hold the criminal responsible. Over the years, I've run into a number of adults who are either dependent on the government, or are just one step away from it, because of child sexual abuse. In many cases, it is impossible to determine who the guilty party was, the evidence would be insufficient for even the standard of proof of a civil suit, statute of limitations, or the guilty party has absolutely nothing of value. Unlike fraud, where there is only a transfer of wealth, some crimes end up destroying human capital. I look at the damaged people that I know (and unfortunately, I know more than I can easily count from our years in California), and I see a lot of people unlikely to ever be self-sufficient.
c. Poor kids as hostages of poverty. I have always been frustrated by one of the most difficult problems of poverty: children who are effectively hostages to bad parents. I had a sister-in-law who was part of the welfare dependency class (because her husband never let work get in the way of his intoxicants). Her perception of how things worked among her fellow dependents was that in about half the homes, the AFDC check went to feed and care for the kids, and then whatever was left over went to support the parental intoxicant habits. In the other half the homes, the parental intoxicants came first, and only the fear of Child Protective Services made sure that the kids had food.
What is the libertarian solution? It has to work as well as the welfare state liberalism solution (which isn't a terribly high bar to reach). If a private charity cuts off funding to the irresponsible parents, the kids go hungry, preventing the next generation from having any hope of improving itself. If a private charity doesn't cut off funding, they will find themselves unable to keep up with demand from other intoxication-based parents, anxious to get their bad habits subsidized. A private organization lacks the legal authority to take the kids away from the parents. (The record of foster care is so bad that even in the welfare state liberalism solution, judges are reluctant to take kids away from their biological parents, and with good reason.)
d. Libertarian ideas rely excessively on notions of self-interest. Self-interest is a fine organizing principle for a society if people are intelligent and prepared to think about long-term consequences of their actions. Great! But what about the other 90% of Americans? It used to be said that the only question you had to ask at a Santa Clara County Libertarian Party function was, "Hardware or software?" I have found that on average, engineers tend to be both intelligent, and prepared to think long-term about their actions. There are doubtless a few other professions where this is generally the case. Is this generally the case for most Americans? No. I shudder to think of what is going to happen as the Clinton generation starts to retire over the next few years. For every Woodstock attendee who has an adequate 401k or IRA to support them in their 70s and 80s, there will be probably six or seven who have exactly zero set aside. I've seen too many examples of people cashing out their 401k plans in their 30s and 40s, and buying nice cars.
e. Another component of the self-interest problem is that for many Americans, the primary operating principle is guilt. This is why left-wing politics gets more common in the multimillionaire and billionaire ranks. If all this guilt led to charitable giving, this would be a good thing. Mostly, however, the purveyors of guilt are the left, with people like John Kerry, gigolo to multimillionaire heiresses, leading the charge against wealth and privilege.
The Princess Diaries: Better Than I Expected
Saturday night I was channel surfing (yes, I do that occasionally), and I ran into the beginning of The Princess Diaries, a comedy made a couple of years ago with Anne Hathaway and Julie Andrews (looking much better than someone her age should ever look). My wife returned from her band gig about 8:30, and we headed off to dinner with our daughter and her fiance. I was so impressed that I decided to rent it, and watch the whole film without commercials.
The first half of the film (which is as much as I saw Saturday night) is really funny--and I don't mean witty, or amusing. Even watching some of the pratfalls for the second time, I was occasionally laughing so hard that I was becoming short of breath. The second half of the film isn't really all that funny; it tries for sweet and romantic, but doesn't really pull that part off quite so well.
Still, if you need a film that you can enjoy with your kids, this might be one to consider renting. It is, I think, the first G-rated comedy that I have seen in some time that wasn't animated. (I will tell you that as much as I enjoyed it, I found myself a little disappointed that an animated feature such as Shrek, intended for kids, had some gratuitous crude humor in it. As near as I can tell, it was put it deliberately to raise the rating to PG.) There was no foul language in The Princess Diaries. There were a very few places where particular lines of dialog would be completely over the heads of most young kids (it's the line about the black pumps that the chauffeur buys for the princess), but even these were, in a nation as sexually warped as America has become, really incredibly mild.
Is this a great piece of film art? No. You'll recognize themes from My Fair Lady, Cinderella, and King Ralph of course. I found myself wondering a little why a nation somewhere between Spain and Portgual has its citizens speaking with primarily British accents--and the cultural attache is speaking flawless American English. The kids at the private school in San Francisco, even the mean stuck up snobs, are more 1970s than modern Bay Area types. (Of course, a film about real high school kids from the Bay Area today would be either extremely atypical, or at least R-rated.) There are gaping implausibilities in the setup for the story.
One aspect of the film that was an odd mixture of realism and idealism, however, is the heroine, Mia. Anne Hathaway does a nice job of portraying her as a sweet and innocent 15 year old, waiting for her first romantic kiss. Note to writers: this is perhaps .00001% of 15 year old girls in the San Francisco Bay Area. At the same time, Hathaway manages to convey how easily a lot of 15 year olds are manipulated and taken advantage of by guys with their own agendas. Unfortunately, the real world of the San Francisco Bay Area (and probably most other places in America) doesn't involve guys looking for press coverage, and the consequences for the girl aren't embarrassment and scolding by the grandmother, but much more seriously life changing problems.
But so what? Anyone that complains about a movie that is unrealistic--but thinks Kill Bill is great art--has some other problems to confront. This is a movie that you can laugh at, enjoy, and not be ashamed to have shown your kids.
Can You Believe Everything You Receive in Email?
Harold Brashears, one of my loyal readers, points out: A lot of email seems to be appearing lately claiming something like, they are a "Life Long Republican," and usually then goes on to note they are a big a big admirer or Rush Limbaugh or they voted for Bush.
Hmmm. Just like Moby was saying a few days ago was how he and other liberals intended to win the election for the Democrat.
However, they have a bone to pick.
Then the writer skips off into a dissertation of the sins of Bush. I suspect they are fake. I suspect that few real "Life Long Republicans" would then go on to some outrageous assertion, like, "...can't support a man that will go to war without a shred of tangible evidence of clear and eminent danger."
As I said, I think these are fakes.
Unique Uses for Human Remains
I've heard of cremated human remains being used in the making of pottery. Planetary geologist Eugene Shoemaker's ashes were carried by the Lunar Prospector spacecraft to the Moon. Here's a new variation on the theme: The widow of an expert on vintage shotguns had her husband's ashes loaded into cartridges and used by friends for the last shoot of the season.
Joanna Booth organised the shoot for 20 close friends on an estate in Aberdeenshire after asking a cartridge company to mix the ashes of her husband James with traditional shot.
A total of 275 12-bore cartridges were produced from the mix and were blessed by a minister before they were used to bag pheasants, partridges, ducks and a fox on Brucklay Estate.
Mrs Booth, of Streatham, south London, said it was a marvellous day out and her husband would have loved it. "It was not his dying wish, but I remembered that he had read somewhere that someone had had their ashes loaded into cartridges and he thought it was very funny.
"One of our friends, a woman who had never shot before, got four partridges with James's marked cartridges."
Oil Prices and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
This article from the Financial Times quotes two Senators complaining that the Bush Administration is driving up oil prices by continuing to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve:Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, and Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, wrote a letter at the weekend urging Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, to suspend plans to fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to "help provide American consumers and businesses with urgently needed relief from near-record high crude oil and energy prices".
Interesting point. I can see several possible reasons for this policy.
With oil prices in the mid $30-range and commercial stockpiles at record lows, high petrol prices this summer could become a factor in President George W. Bush's re-election.
The two senators argue that filling the SPR at such high oil prices costs taxpayers "hundreds of millions of dollars" and that, according to the Air Transport Association, it adds up to $6 a barrel, or nearly 20 per cent, to the US oil price. The letter also quotes the economist Philip Verleger as estimating the extra cost at $8.
Other economists are less certain that the policy is having such a strong affect on oil prices.
Nevertheless, Adam Sieminski, analyst at Deutsche Bank, points out that filling the SPR reduces the amount of barrels in the market and contributes to the reluctance of commercial buyers to fill their inventories.
The administration argues that filling its emergency reserves by 2005 is a security measure to avoid shortages. But it is a policy that pits it directly against the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries - in particular Saudi Arabia, its largest and most influential member.
1. They genuinely see some risk of foreign instability (say, involving overthrow of the Saudi government) putting us at risk of not having a steady supply of incoming oil.
2. They are just being prudent, and filling the SPR.
3. They are terrified of the economy recovering, and putting too many people back to work, perhaps too far before the election.
Why Illegal Immigration is So Hard To Stop
My mother just forwarded this question to me:MAD COW MIGRATION
That's because that cow isn't going to be voting Democrat.
"Is it just me or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington... but they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country."
Integrity in the History Profession
No, that's not a very thin book. Ralph Luker has just blogged about the Organization of American Historians response to the recent crises:The print version of February's OAH Newsletter announces the Organization of American Historians official response to the series of scandals that introduced history to the third millennium. My articles, "The Year When We Got Caught" and "Clio's Malpractice; or, What's A Fallen Girl To Do?" suggested that, while 2001 and 2002 were particularly embarrassing years for historians, the scandals had lots of precedents in the last half century and often involved fairly prominent practitioners of the craft.
Diamonds Are a Galaxy's Best Friend?
A friend pointed me to this amusing news item:Cambridge, MA -- When choosing a Valentine's Day gift for a wife or girlfriend, you can't go wrong with diamonds. If you really want to impress your favorite lady this Valentine's Day, get her the galaxy's largest diamond. But you'd better carry a deep wallet, because this 10 billion trillion trillion carat monster has a cost that's literally astronomical!
"You would need a jeweler's loupe the size of the Sun to grade this diamond!" says astronomer Travis Metcalfe (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), who leads a team of researchers that discovered the giant gem. "Bill Gates and Donald Trump together couldn't begin to afford it."
When asked to estimate the value of the cosmic jewel, Ronald Winston, CEO of Harry Winston Inc., indicated that such a large diamond probably would depress the value of the market, stating, "Who knows? It may be a self-deflating prophecy because there is so much of it." He added, "It is definitely too big to wear!"
The newly discovered cosmic diamond is a chunk of crystallized carbon 50 light-years from the Earth in the constellation Centaurus. (A light-year is the distance light travels in a year, or about 6 trillion miles.) It is 2,500 miles across and weighs 5 million trillion trillion pounds, which translates to approximately 10 billion trillion trillion carats, or a one followed by 34 zeros.
...
For more than four decades, astronomers have thought that the interiors of white dwarfs crystallized, but obtaining direct evidence became possible only recently.
"The hunt for the crystal core of this white dwarf has been like the search for the Lost Dutchman's Mine. It was thought to exist for decades, but only now has it been located," says co-author Michael Montgomery (University of Cambridge).
The white dwarf studied by Metcalfe, Montgomery, and Antonio Kanaan (UFSC Brazil), is not only radiant but also harmonious. It rings like a gigantic gong, undergoing constant pulsations.
"By measuring those pulsations, we were able to study the hidden interior of the white dwarf, just like seismograph measurements of earthquakes allow geologists to study the interior of the Earth. We figured out that the carbon interior of this white dwarf has solidified to form the galaxy's largest diamond," says Metcalfe.
