There's a famous philosophical puzzle, originally attributed to Eubulides of Miletus, known as the sorites paradox or heaps problem. It goes like this: Two or three grains of sand obviously don't constitute a "heap" of sand. And it seems absurd to suppose that adding a single grain of sand could turn something that wasn't a heap into a heap. But apply that logic repeatedly as you add one grain after another, and you're pushed to the equally absurd conclusion that 100,000 grains aren't a heap either. (Alternatively, you can run the logic in the other direction and prove that three grains of sand are a heap.)
It's not a terribly deep puzzle, of course: It simply illustrates that some of our everyday concepts, like that of a heap, are vague or fuzzy, not susceptible to such precise definition. Try to define such concepts in too much detail and absurdity results.
The problem is, concepts like "interstate commerce," "public use," "unreasonable search," and "cruel and unusual" are similarly fuzzy. And stare decisis, the principle that cases are to be decided by reference to previous rulings, means that the Court's interpretation of those rulings looks an awful lot like a process of adding one grain at a time without ever arriving at an unconstitutional heap—an instance of what law professor Eugene Volokh has called an "attitude altering slippery slope." Jurisprudence is all about distinguishing cases, explaining why some legal principle applies in situation A, but not in apparently similar situation B. But if the grains are fine enough—the differences from case to case sufficiently subtle—plausible distinctions become harder to find.
[...]
These two decisions prompted outrage not because either was a radical departure from precedent —neither was—but because they called attention to just how many grains of precedent had been piled atop the terms "public use" and "interstate commerce," reaching so far from the common-sense meanings of those terms as to seem preposterous if one is only eyeballing the heap, rather than attending to the process.
[...]
[L]legal rules, to be legitimate, should also reflect a shared public understanding. That's not to say the polls must vindicate each particular court ruling. But when stability begins to undermine the public's sense that they understand the most fundamental rules by which they're governed, it's a sign that jurists need to be willing to step back and see the heap.
James Leroy Wilson's one-man magazine.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
A Heap of Precedents
Julian Sanchez at Reason on Kelo and Raich.
Judge Not
My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:
The Supreme Court did not fail us. If anything, these decisions only go to show that neither the Constitution nor democracy protects individual rights and freedoms. There may be some rumblings that enough people are finally angry enough to do something. Government in the United States may have finally crossed the line, and maybe the people are mad as hell and won't take it anymore. If so, great. It's about time.
But if not, if the outrage will die down and people will forget, we must remember that there is little use in judging others. If you are asked questions like, "What's wrong with America," "What's wrong with your church," or "What's wrong with your company" remember that the only part of any enterprise or organization that you can truly control, change, and improve, is yourself.
Labels:
Partial Observer
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Happy Birthday, Bastiat!
The classical liberal Frederic Bastiat would have turned 204 today. Here are excerpts of The Candlemaker's Petition, which exposes the absurdity of protectionism:
Gentlemen:
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your -- what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice -- your practice without theory and without principle.
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us.
We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds -- in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.
[...]
Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?
We have our answer ready:
You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.
Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, ``Yes,'' you reply, ``but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.'' Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.
``But,'' you may still say, ``the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.'' Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.
Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?
But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have only half as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else's would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.
[...]
To take another example: When a product -- coal, iron, wheat, or textiles -- comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The Meaning of the 14th Amendment
First, here's Article IV of the Constitution:
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State....
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States....
What does this mean? From “Exploring Constitutional Conflicts”:
So, “privileges and immunities” are the rights of non-residents to migrate and to earn a living in another state. It doesn’t give them the privilege, however, to pay in-state tuition at the university, nor does it exempt them from the laws of the state.
Next, let’s consider:
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
With that in mind, let’s look at the 14th Amendment:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is clearly a follow-up amendment to protect ex-slaves. Which is not to say that it is no longer in force, or that it doesn’t apply to all persons of any minority or majority group, but rather that we shouldn’t read more into this then what is written. Since all “persons born or naturalized” - including ex-slaves - are citizens of the United States, no state can deny an ex-slave the right to migrate and earn a living. No state can deny a black non-resident what is granted to a white non-resident. Nothing here suggests that states must respect the restrictions on the federal government as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Likewise, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Ex-slaves can not be lynched - they have access to the same court procedures and the same benefit of doubt. But the Amendment does not tell the states what the laws should be. Nothing here suggests that states must respect the restrictions on the federal government as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Finally, no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Stealing from an ex-slave must carry the same penalty as stealing from a white. Murdering an ex-slave must carry the same penalty as murdering a white. But nothing here suggests that states must respect the restrictions on the federal government as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The 14th Amendment does not repeal intrusive, tyrannical, or unjust laws and actions by the states. It only says that such laws can not be discriminatory. The 5th Amendment certainly forbids the federal government from using eminent domain power for private use, but the 14th Amendment does not forbids states from doing so.
So don't blame the Supreme Court for failing to provide justice in the Kelo v. New London decision. It did not have the authority or jurisdiction to interfere. The only regretable part is that the Court does think it has the authority and jurisdiction in many other cases of purely local concern.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State....
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States....
What does this mean? From “Exploring Constitutional Conflicts”:
As the Supreme Court sees it, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Commerce Clause of Article I serve the common goal of unifying the country economically. The primary purpose of the clause is to prevent states from placing unreasonable burdens on non-residents "in their pursuit of common callings within the state." The concern of the framers was that discrimination against non-residents by one state would lead to discrimination of the same sort by other states, to the detriment of the nation as a whole.
Clearly, however, the Constitution does not require states to treat residents and non-residents equally for all purposes. If this were so, non-residents could vote in another state's election, run for office in another state, or collect benefits from another state.
Justice Bushrod Washington, sitting as a circuit judge in the case of Corfield v Coryell (1825), first considered the meaning of Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause. Bushrod Washington concluded that the clause was meant to prevent discrimination concerning fundamental matters (such as the right to pursue an occupation in another state), but was not intended to prohibit distinctions between residents and non-residents in less fundamental matters such as opportunities for recreation. To a large extent, Washington's approach has been followed ever since.
In our two other cases, however, the Court found state attempts to restrict occupational opportunities within the state for non-residents to violate the clause. In Hicklin v Orbeck (1978), the Court struck down the "Alaska Hire Law," which gave Alaska residents a preference for jobs in the state's oil industry. And in Supreme Court of New Hampshire v Piper (1985), the Court voided a New Hampshire rule that limited admission to the state bar to New Hampshire residents. In both cases, the Court found that the states had failed to meet the high burden of justification for a law discriminating against non-residents with respect to a fundamental right. Discriminatory laws of this sort, the Court said, would only be upheld when the non-residents are "a peculiar source" of the "evil" the state is attempting to regulate and when the discrimatory law is the best way to get at the problem.
So, “privileges and immunities” are the rights of non-residents to migrate and to earn a living in another state. It doesn’t give them the privilege, however, to pay in-state tuition at the university, nor does it exempt them from the laws of the state.
Next, let’s consider:
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
With that in mind, let’s look at the 14th Amendment:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is clearly a follow-up amendment to protect ex-slaves. Which is not to say that it is no longer in force, or that it doesn’t apply to all persons of any minority or majority group, but rather that we shouldn’t read more into this then what is written. Since all “persons born or naturalized” - including ex-slaves - are citizens of the United States, no state can deny an ex-slave the right to migrate and earn a living. No state can deny a black non-resident what is granted to a white non-resident. Nothing here suggests that states must respect the restrictions on the federal government as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Likewise, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Ex-slaves can not be lynched - they have access to the same court procedures and the same benefit of doubt. But the Amendment does not tell the states what the laws should be. Nothing here suggests that states must respect the restrictions on the federal government as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Finally, no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Stealing from an ex-slave must carry the same penalty as stealing from a white. Murdering an ex-slave must carry the same penalty as murdering a white. But nothing here suggests that states must respect the restrictions on the federal government as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The 14th Amendment does not repeal intrusive, tyrannical, or unjust laws and actions by the states. It only says that such laws can not be discriminatory. The 5th Amendment certainly forbids the federal government from using eminent domain power for private use, but the 14th Amendment does not forbids states from doing so.
So don't blame the Supreme Court for failing to provide justice in the Kelo v. New London decision. It did not have the authority or jurisdiction to interfere. The only regretable part is that the Court does think it has the authority and jurisdiction in many other cases of purely local concern.
Why the Constitution Ain't So Great
An incomplete list, but a start...
REASONS THE CONSTITUTION AIN'T SO GREAT
PART I: What is THAT Supposed to Mean?
1. Preamble: "promote the general welfare."
2. Art I, sec 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. (is this in addition to or a preamble to the following enumerated powers?)
3.Art II, sec 4:The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (what is a "high crime?")
4. Article 3, section 1: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior... (is "bad" behavior a "high crime" or does "bad" behavior include incompetence or reckless judgment?)
5. Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (The use, of commas, in this sentence, is quite annoying.)
6. Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (according to whom?)
7. Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (WHICH others?)
8. Amendment XIII: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... (what kind of involuntary servitude is there besides slavery? Compulsory schooling? Conscription?)
9. Amendment XIV:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; (what the hell are "privileges and immunities?")
10. Amendment XIV: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (does that mean equal state-granted benefits? Equal funding for schools? Roads?)
Part II: Dumb Ideas
1. Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union... (why was that necessary? So that merchants could bribe just one legislature - Congress - instead of 13?)
2. Article I, Section 7: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.(Better to have the House propose all bills and the Senate to veto or amend. Also, the Senate should have been able to overrule the Supreme Court on Constitutional questions. Should have been the republican equivalent of the House of Lords.)
3. Article I, section 8: [Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (hello, monopoly!)
4. Art III, sec 1 (yes, the same as above): The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior. (as opposed to limited terms.)
5. Amendment XIV. (All of Article I is either poorly written or badly interpreted. If it was meant to have the states respect the entire Bill of Rights, it should have said so).
6. Amendment XVI: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. (Hello socialism; hello empire.)
7. Amendment XVII: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. (bye, bye, statesmen: hello crooks, demagogues, and party hacks)
8. Amendment XXII: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. (lame ducks invite scandals: Lewinsky, Iran-Contra, Watergate.)
9. Amendment XXIII: Presidential vote for District of Columbia. (If they went to all the trouble of amending, why didn't they do something about statehood or ceding areas back to VA and MD?)
10.Democratization amendments: nothing wrong in principle with expanding suffrage to ex-slaves, women, 18 year-olds, and poor people. The cumulative effect of mass representative democracy, however, is lowest-common-denominator, short-sighted, irresponsible government.
REASONS THE CONSTITUTION AIN'T SO GREAT
PART I: What is THAT Supposed to Mean?
1. Preamble: "promote the general welfare."
2. Art I, sec 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. (is this in addition to or a preamble to the following enumerated powers?)
3.Art II, sec 4:The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (what is a "high crime?")
4. Article 3, section 1: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior... (is "bad" behavior a "high crime" or does "bad" behavior include incompetence or reckless judgment?)
5. Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (The use, of commas, in this sentence, is quite annoying.)
6. Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (according to whom?)
7. Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (WHICH others?)
8. Amendment XIII: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... (what kind of involuntary servitude is there besides slavery? Compulsory schooling? Conscription?)
9. Amendment XIV:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; (what the hell are "privileges and immunities?")
10. Amendment XIV: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (does that mean equal state-granted benefits? Equal funding for schools? Roads?)
Part II: Dumb Ideas
1. Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union... (why was that necessary? So that merchants could bribe just one legislature - Congress - instead of 13?)
2. Article I, Section 7: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.(Better to have the House propose all bills and the Senate to veto or amend. Also, the Senate should have been able to overrule the Supreme Court on Constitutional questions. Should have been the republican equivalent of the House of Lords.)
3. Article I, section 8: [Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (hello, monopoly!)
4. Art III, sec 1 (yes, the same as above): The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior. (as opposed to limited terms.)
5. Amendment XIV. (All of Article I is either poorly written or badly interpreted. If it was meant to have the states respect the entire Bill of Rights, it should have said so).
6. Amendment XVI: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. (Hello socialism; hello empire.)
7. Amendment XVII: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. (bye, bye, statesmen: hello crooks, demagogues, and party hacks)
8. Amendment XXII: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. (lame ducks invite scandals: Lewinsky, Iran-Contra, Watergate.)
9. Amendment XXIII: Presidential vote for District of Columbia. (If they went to all the trouble of amending, why didn't they do something about statehood or ceding areas back to VA and MD?)
10.Democratization amendments: nothing wrong in principle with expanding suffrage to ex-slaves, women, 18 year-olds, and poor people. The cumulative effect of mass representative democracy, however, is lowest-common-denominator, short-sighted, irresponsible government.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Court Split on Religion
I hope that after Raich and Kelo Americans will begin to realize that they can't rely on constitutions and courts to protect their rights and freedoms. After those landmark judgments, any decision on Ten Commandments displays in state courtrooms is extremely trivial in comparison.
Both sides ought to wonder why they waste their time. Who cares if the there is a complete separation of Church and State, if at the same time the feds can arrest grandma for taking "immoral" medications, and your town government can just up and steal your land from you?
Of all the things states do that they ought not do, public displays of religion and even tax support for a particular church are the least serious and least important. The most violent religious persecution in the USA was, I believe, against Mormons, and that was chiefly mob action instead of government action. The reason the Salem witch trial controversy is remembered is because it was an anomaly in our religious history. The greatest institutional religious injustice was technically nonsectarian - the establishment of public schools so as to indoctrinate immigrants into the virtues of generic Protestantism instead of their native Catholicism.
Even today as hysterical and ill-informed charges of "theocracy" are directed toward the President and his support base, we must keep in mind that the divisions between conservatives and liberals go through all denominations, and Bush's own, Methodist, is considered mainline and liberal. Even conservative fundamentalists don't want state sponsorship of church, for they are from too many denominations and independent churches themselves. And even if they wanted to install draconian Levitical punishment - and the numbers of real theocrats who desire this are small and their political power is much smaller - much of that can be done in religious-neutral language.
Keep in mind, further, that there's been virtually no Protestant vs. Protestant violent conflict since the early years of the Reformation. For 200 years individual colonies, and then states, had state support for religion and had a "religious test" for public office. And yet those colonies/states had few if any religious conflicts within their own borders, let alone with each other. Indeed, rigidly secular countries, from Turkey to Cuba, are not free. Granted, neither are rigidly religous countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. But Canada and many European countries still have varying kinds and degrees of state support for religion. Both ACLU members and Christian fundamentalists would rather live in one of them than in a rigidly all-secular or all-religous country. A display of the Ten Commandments won't usher in the Taliban.
This isn't an argument to include religious symbolism at government sites where they weren't previously there. It certainly isn't an argument to go back to state support for religion. But it is to say that no one is suffering in the places where they presently exist. An individual is neither more nor less likely to receive justice if there is a Ten Commandments display in the courtroom. Even when church and state were more closely tied in our country, the Inquisition never came. It certainly won't come in a more pluralistic society.
It is time that the Supreme Court left well enough alone and stopped harrassing state and local governments on matters of religion.
Both sides ought to wonder why they waste their time. Who cares if the there is a complete separation of Church and State, if at the same time the feds can arrest grandma for taking "immoral" medications, and your town government can just up and steal your land from you?
Of all the things states do that they ought not do, public displays of religion and even tax support for a particular church are the least serious and least important. The most violent religious persecution in the USA was, I believe, against Mormons, and that was chiefly mob action instead of government action. The reason the Salem witch trial controversy is remembered is because it was an anomaly in our religious history. The greatest institutional religious injustice was technically nonsectarian - the establishment of public schools so as to indoctrinate immigrants into the virtues of generic Protestantism instead of their native Catholicism.
Even today as hysterical and ill-informed charges of "theocracy" are directed toward the President and his support base, we must keep in mind that the divisions between conservatives and liberals go through all denominations, and Bush's own, Methodist, is considered mainline and liberal. Even conservative fundamentalists don't want state sponsorship of church, for they are from too many denominations and independent churches themselves. And even if they wanted to install draconian Levitical punishment - and the numbers of real theocrats who desire this are small and their political power is much smaller - much of that can be done in religious-neutral language.
Keep in mind, further, that there's been virtually no Protestant vs. Protestant violent conflict since the early years of the Reformation. For 200 years individual colonies, and then states, had state support for religion and had a "religious test" for public office. And yet those colonies/states had few if any religious conflicts within their own borders, let alone with each other. Indeed, rigidly secular countries, from Turkey to Cuba, are not free. Granted, neither are rigidly religous countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. But Canada and many European countries still have varying kinds and degrees of state support for religion. Both ACLU members and Christian fundamentalists would rather live in one of them than in a rigidly all-secular or all-religous country. A display of the Ten Commandments won't usher in the Taliban.
This isn't an argument to include religious symbolism at government sites where they weren't previously there. It certainly isn't an argument to go back to state support for religion. But it is to say that no one is suffering in the places where they presently exist. An individual is neither more nor less likely to receive justice if there is a Ten Commandments display in the courtroom. Even when church and state were more closely tied in our country, the Inquisition never came. It certainly won't come in a more pluralistic society.
It is time that the Supreme Court left well enough alone and stopped harrassing state and local governments on matters of religion.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Going Geo-Green
I normally don't pay attention to Thomas "I have no problem with a war for oil" Friedman, but this article makes sense. I do not see how or why energy consumption needs to be such a pollution problem in our country or world, or why transitions need to be all that expensive or burdensome. It seems only that the incentives for improvement are lacking. If we moved away from taxing capital, wages, and profits, and more toward taxing pollutants and land extractions, the incentives for energy efficiency would be there even without government mandates.
Friedman writes:
Toyota has pioneered the very hybrid engine technology that can help rescue not only our economy from its oil addiction (how about 500 miles per gallon of gasoline?), but also our foreign policy from dependence on Middle Eastern oil autocrats.
[...]
As Gal Luft, co-chairman of the Set America Free coalition, a bipartisan alliance of national security, labor, environmental and religious groups that believe reducing oil consumption is a national priority, points out: the majority of U.S. oil imports go to fueling the transport sector - primarily cars and trucks. Therefore, the key to reducing our dependence on foreign oil is powering our cars and trucks with less petroleum.
There are two ways we can do that. One is electricity. We don't import electricity. We generate all of our needs with coal, hydropower, nuclear power and natural gas. Toyota's hybrid cars, like the Prius, run on both gasoline and electricity that is generated by braking and then stored in a small battery. But, says Luft, if you had a hybrid that you could plug in at night, the battery could store up 20 miles of driving per day. So your first 20 miles would be covered by the battery. The gasoline would only kick in after that. Since 50 percent of Americans do not drive more than 20 miles a day, the battery power would cover all their driving. Even if they drove more than that, combining the battery power and the gasoline could give them 100 miles per gallon of gasoline used, Luft notes.
[...]
Then add to that flexible-fuel cars, which have a special chip and fuel line that enable them to burn alcohol (ethanol or methanol), gasoline or any mixture of the two. Some four million U.S. cars already come equipped this way, including from G.M. It costs only about $100 a car to make it flex-fuel ready. Brazil hopes to have all its new cars flex-fuel ready by 2008. As Luft notes, if you combined a plug-in hybrid system with a flex-fuel system that burns 80 percent alcohol and 20 percent gasoline, you could end up stretching each gallon of gasoline up to 500 miles.
In short, we don't need to reinvent the wheel or wait for sci-fi hydrogen fuel cells. The technologies we need for a stronger, more energy independent America are already here. The only thing we have a shortage of now are leaders with the imagination and will to move the country onto a geo-green path.
Friedman writes:
Toyota has pioneered the very hybrid engine technology that can help rescue not only our economy from its oil addiction (how about 500 miles per gallon of gasoline?), but also our foreign policy from dependence on Middle Eastern oil autocrats.
[...]
As Gal Luft, co-chairman of the Set America Free coalition, a bipartisan alliance of national security, labor, environmental and religious groups that believe reducing oil consumption is a national priority, points out: the majority of U.S. oil imports go to fueling the transport sector - primarily cars and trucks. Therefore, the key to reducing our dependence on foreign oil is powering our cars and trucks with less petroleum.
There are two ways we can do that. One is electricity. We don't import electricity. We generate all of our needs with coal, hydropower, nuclear power and natural gas. Toyota's hybrid cars, like the Prius, run on both gasoline and electricity that is generated by braking and then stored in a small battery. But, says Luft, if you had a hybrid that you could plug in at night, the battery could store up 20 miles of driving per day. So your first 20 miles would be covered by the battery. The gasoline would only kick in after that. Since 50 percent of Americans do not drive more than 20 miles a day, the battery power would cover all their driving. Even if they drove more than that, combining the battery power and the gasoline could give them 100 miles per gallon of gasoline used, Luft notes.
[...]
Then add to that flexible-fuel cars, which have a special chip and fuel line that enable them to burn alcohol (ethanol or methanol), gasoline or any mixture of the two. Some four million U.S. cars already come equipped this way, including from G.M. It costs only about $100 a car to make it flex-fuel ready. Brazil hopes to have all its new cars flex-fuel ready by 2008. As Luft notes, if you combined a plug-in hybrid system with a flex-fuel system that burns 80 percent alcohol and 20 percent gasoline, you could end up stretching each gallon of gasoline up to 500 miles.
In short, we don't need to reinvent the wheel or wait for sci-fi hydrogen fuel cells. The technologies we need for a stronger, more energy independent America are already here. The only thing we have a shortage of now are leaders with the imagination and will to move the country onto a geo-green path.
Friday, June 24, 2005
The Kelo Decision
Excerpts of an article I'm working on:
I confess that I am having trouble summoning the appropriate outrage at Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court decision that permits states and local governments to use eminent domain powers to transfer land from one private owner to another. This assault on the rights of poor and middle-class homeowners for the benefit of corporations and developers is indeed outrageous. We should all be angry. But the real villains are not senior citizens on a bench in Washington D.C, but the politicians, bureaucrats, and developers who conspire to steal land in our communities.
[...]
[T]his puts liberalism in a very bad light. In recent years the liberals on the Court upheld the individual right to practice sodomy. A victory for liberty, right? Yet they also upheld federal laws limiting free speech in the name of campaign finance reform, and upheld a federal law criminalizing medicinal use of marijuana. And now Kelo. Conservative accusations against leftist judges appear to have merit: the Court’s stands on sex, race, and religion that seem to limit government power are really intended to advance equality, not liberty, and otherwise government is entitled to absolute power. The tyranny of the majority can not act out of “hate,” but it can act out of greed. GOP operatives certainly can keep the judiciary alive as a hot-button issue to rally conservatives, and I can’t blame them.
[...]
It looked like a slam-dunk in favor of individual rights in the best, not the worst, tradition of the 14th Amendment. But directing our rage at the Court overlooks the deeper problem. After all, the Court should be consistent, but the Court’s critics should be consistent as well. To have ruled for individual rights and against the city of New London would itself be evidence of conservative “judicial activism.“ Is it really the business of the federal courts to micro-manage every local property dispute? I criticize Supreme Court intervention in local affairs even when I find the laws themselves repugnant. Am I then to turn around and claim that the Court ought to intervene when it comes to property? Because I interpret the 14th Amendment narrowly, and am ambivalent at best about judicial review, it is difficult for me to criticize the Court for Kelo.
[...]
Homeowners must instead take action themselves. Their motto should be, “Remember Kelo!” And from local boards and town councils, all the way up to U.S. Senate, their #1 issue should be eminent domain. Candidates for office must be grilled constantly on it. Homeowners must come together and respect the Golden Rule - if I want to protect my own home, I must also protect the home on the other side of town. The outrage in New London doesn’t have to happen again in the United States, if the people won’t stand for it.
I confess that I am having trouble summoning the appropriate outrage at Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court decision that permits states and local governments to use eminent domain powers to transfer land from one private owner to another. This assault on the rights of poor and middle-class homeowners for the benefit of corporations and developers is indeed outrageous. We should all be angry. But the real villains are not senior citizens on a bench in Washington D.C, but the politicians, bureaucrats, and developers who conspire to steal land in our communities.
[...]
[T]his puts liberalism in a very bad light. In recent years the liberals on the Court upheld the individual right to practice sodomy. A victory for liberty, right? Yet they also upheld federal laws limiting free speech in the name of campaign finance reform, and upheld a federal law criminalizing medicinal use of marijuana. And now Kelo. Conservative accusations against leftist judges appear to have merit: the Court’s stands on sex, race, and religion that seem to limit government power are really intended to advance equality, not liberty, and otherwise government is entitled to absolute power. The tyranny of the majority can not act out of “hate,” but it can act out of greed. GOP operatives certainly can keep the judiciary alive as a hot-button issue to rally conservatives, and I can’t blame them.
[...]
It looked like a slam-dunk in favor of individual rights in the best, not the worst, tradition of the 14th Amendment. But directing our rage at the Court overlooks the deeper problem. After all, the Court should be consistent, but the Court’s critics should be consistent as well. To have ruled for individual rights and against the city of New London would itself be evidence of conservative “judicial activism.“ Is it really the business of the federal courts to micro-manage every local property dispute? I criticize Supreme Court intervention in local affairs even when I find the laws themselves repugnant. Am I then to turn around and claim that the Court ought to intervene when it comes to property? Because I interpret the 14th Amendment narrowly, and am ambivalent at best about judicial review, it is difficult for me to criticize the Court for Kelo.
[...]
Homeowners must instead take action themselves. Their motto should be, “Remember Kelo!” And from local boards and town councils, all the way up to U.S. Senate, their #1 issue should be eminent domain. Candidates for office must be grilled constantly on it. Homeowners must come together and respect the Golden Rule - if I want to protect my own home, I must also protect the home on the other side of town. The outrage in New London doesn’t have to happen again in the United States, if the people won’t stand for it.
Christian and Libertarian
Fr Jim Tucker writes
This is something that bears repeating, especially since religious people often assume that if something is immoral, then it should necessarily also be criminal. There's a long Catholic tradition (going back at least to St Augustine) that maintains a sharp distinction between immorality and criminality. This fundamental distinction, premised upon the idea that the government basically exists in order to prevent and punish unjust aggression and fraud, is the basis for what can be called Christian libertarianism. Once the State gets into the business of hunting down and punishing non-aggressive personal vices, it's going to cause more problems than it solves (and if this was true in the Era of Christendom, it's all the truer nowadays). To say that the government doesn't need laws against cigarettes, sodomy, private drunkenness, marijuana, skipping Mass, flag burning, blasphemy, and what-not is not to say that all those things are just peachy: it merely means that these kinds of matters of personal virtue and vice are outside the competence of human government.
Especially in a pluralistic society such as ours, who really wants the government (which governs by the will of the voters) to tell people what virtue and vice are? What in the world would make our politicians capable teachers of virtue and exterminators of vice? God knows they don't enjoy the charism of infallibility. And if we're content to impose laws of virtue and vice while we're still in the majority, what happens if and when that changes, and the New Agers, or secular humanists, or French-style godless atheists rise to the majority and follow our example by legislating their own laws of virtue and vice? Such laws don't build character and enlighten minds: they coerce external behavior, breed hypocrisy, divinize the State, and teach people that the moral law is an arbitrary set of rules subject to majority vote.
This is something that bears repeating, especially since religious people often assume that if something is immoral, then it should necessarily also be criminal. There's a long Catholic tradition (going back at least to St Augustine) that maintains a sharp distinction between immorality and criminality. This fundamental distinction, premised upon the idea that the government basically exists in order to prevent and punish unjust aggression and fraud, is the basis for what can be called Christian libertarianism. Once the State gets into the business of hunting down and punishing non-aggressive personal vices, it's going to cause more problems than it solves (and if this was true in the Era of Christendom, it's all the truer nowadays). To say that the government doesn't need laws against cigarettes, sodomy, private drunkenness, marijuana, skipping Mass, flag burning, blasphemy, and what-not is not to say that all those things are just peachy: it merely means that these kinds of matters of personal virtue and vice are outside the competence of human government.
Especially in a pluralistic society such as ours, who really wants the government (which governs by the will of the voters) to tell people what virtue and vice are? What in the world would make our politicians capable teachers of virtue and exterminators of vice? God knows they don't enjoy the charism of infallibility. And if we're content to impose laws of virtue and vice while we're still in the majority, what happens if and when that changes, and the New Agers, or secular humanists, or French-style godless atheists rise to the majority and follow our example by legislating their own laws of virtue and vice? Such laws don't build character and enlighten minds: they coerce external behavior, breed hypocrisy, divinize the State, and teach people that the moral law is an arbitrary set of rules subject to majority vote.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Talkin' About Flag Desecration Again, Man
Two articles in the same day from me. This one at LRC, The Government Wants You to Desecrate the Flag. Excerpt:
The Amendment gives us the worst of all worlds: it fails to protect state sovereignty, it diminishes individual liberty, and it grants more power to the federal government. All to "solve" a non-problem.
In an age of imperial war, police-state crackdowns, imported and illegal labor, exported jobs, and universities controlled by far-left radicals, you would think that anti-government demonstrations and acts of flag desecration would be on the rise. But no. Flag desecration is legal and tolerated, yet we almost never see it.
Which makes me think that the proposed amendment has sinister implications. A decade ago, in a relatively more peaceful and prosperous time, a Flag Desecration Amendment could be seen as a petty cause from the Stupid Wing of the conservative movement. Even if the Amendment got passed and was ratified by Congress, it would seemingly have little effect on most people’s tranquil lives. But today, as the intellectual and moral basis for the government’s policies crumble and things are getting worse, force is its one remaining weapon to maintain the people’s "support." Conformity and compliance that can not be achieved through persuasion will be imposed through force. Opponents of war and tyranny will question the legitimacy of the federal government itself, if they haven’t done so already. The feds know this, and are seeking new ways to marginalize and silence their opposition.
The Amendment gives us the worst of all worlds: it fails to protect state sovereignty, it diminishes individual liberty, and it grants more power to the federal government. All to "solve" a non-problem.
In an age of imperial war, police-state crackdowns, imported and illegal labor, exported jobs, and universities controlled by far-left radicals, you would think that anti-government demonstrations and acts of flag desecration would be on the rise. But no. Flag desecration is legal and tolerated, yet we almost never see it.
Which makes me think that the proposed amendment has sinister implications. A decade ago, in a relatively more peaceful and prosperous time, a Flag Desecration Amendment could be seen as a petty cause from the Stupid Wing of the conservative movement. Even if the Amendment got passed and was ratified by Congress, it would seemingly have little effect on most people’s tranquil lives. But today, as the intellectual and moral basis for the government’s policies crumble and things are getting worse, force is its one remaining weapon to maintain the people’s "support." Conformity and compliance that can not be achieved through persuasion will be imposed through force. Opponents of war and tyranny will question the legitimacy of the federal government itself, if they haven’t done so already. The feds know this, and are seeking new ways to marginalize and silence their opposition.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Individualism and Idealism
My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:
[S]ome people generate moral behavior according to their own preferences, values, and life lessons, and then project them to higher levels of morality. This comes about through discipline and the development of good habits of heart, mind, and body. Experience and examples provide life's lessons. People help their neighbor whose home burnt down first out of compassion, and second because they would want others to offer help if they had the same misfortune. Not out of a feeling of religious obligation, civic duty, or conformity to universal moral law.
But that is where others begin, with philosophical and theological questions like "What is Good," "What is Happiness," and "What is Justice." These are "level 5" questions, and their Answers are universal - they apply equally to every human being. And the resulting moral laws project downward. The role of the State is to shape civil society so that it conforms to these laws, and ultimately to make sure every family and individual does, too.
Level 1 "individualist" morality applies rules of thumb; Level 5 "idealist" morality just imposes Rules. The level 1 individualist honors the soldier as a patriot who will fight and die in defense of his country; the level 5 idealist honors the soldier as a crusader who will fight and die promoting the Causes of Liberty and Democracy. The individualist applies the Golden Rule and treats everyone he meets with respect, courtesy, and kindness; the idealist is committed to Equality and requires the individual to prove that he isn't a Racist.
[S]ome people generate moral behavior according to their own preferences, values, and life lessons, and then project them to higher levels of morality. This comes about through discipline and the development of good habits of heart, mind, and body. Experience and examples provide life's lessons. People help their neighbor whose home burnt down first out of compassion, and second because they would want others to offer help if they had the same misfortune. Not out of a feeling of religious obligation, civic duty, or conformity to universal moral law.
But that is where others begin, with philosophical and theological questions like "What is Good," "What is Happiness," and "What is Justice." These are "level 5" questions, and their Answers are universal - they apply equally to every human being. And the resulting moral laws project downward. The role of the State is to shape civil society so that it conforms to these laws, and ultimately to make sure every family and individual does, too.
Level 1 "individualist" morality applies rules of thumb; Level 5 "idealist" morality just imposes Rules. The level 1 individualist honors the soldier as a patriot who will fight and die in defense of his country; the level 5 idealist honors the soldier as a crusader who will fight and die promoting the Causes of Liberty and Democracy. The individualist applies the Golden Rule and treats everyone he meets with respect, courtesy, and kindness; the idealist is committed to Equality and requires the individual to prove that he isn't a Racist.
Labels:
Partial Observer
Donnie Kennedy '08
A Donnie Kennedy for President website is up for the Southern author/activist.
The vision is a Liberty Based Society:
Donnie Kennedy’s platform is contained in his pledge to initiate a political movement to replace the current liberal/socialist regime with a Liberty Based Society (LBS) in which government will play a minor role in our society. Government in a LBS will be limited by (1) a constitutional amendment acknowledging the right of State Nullification and Secession, (2) requiring that total government taxation – local, state and federal – be limited to no more than 10% of GDP, and (3) removing indirect taxation via inflation by closing the Federal Reserve and returning to a gold based monetary policy.
These are necessary to diminish big government and prevent its return. Nobody can plausibly argue for both government schools and a 10% tax cap. Congress wouldn't let Presidents attack other nations willy-nilly, because there wouldn't be enough money. Most programs at all levels of government would have to be abolished, and civil society and voluntary cooperation will re-emerge. H.L. Mencken's dream: a government that barely escapes being no government at all.
I also like that the plan is to run in Republican primaries. As I wrote at LRC some months back, instead running as a 3rd party candidate, run first in the primary of the dominant party in your area.
This will be a good measure of the breadth, depth, and commitment of the Southern movement - and the rest of us. If Southerners won't get D.C. off their back, no one will.
The vision is a Liberty Based Society:
Donnie Kennedy’s platform is contained in his pledge to initiate a political movement to replace the current liberal/socialist regime with a Liberty Based Society (LBS) in which government will play a minor role in our society. Government in a LBS will be limited by (1) a constitutional amendment acknowledging the right of State Nullification and Secession, (2) requiring that total government taxation – local, state and federal – be limited to no more than 10% of GDP, and (3) removing indirect taxation via inflation by closing the Federal Reserve and returning to a gold based monetary policy.
These are necessary to diminish big government and prevent its return. Nobody can plausibly argue for both government schools and a 10% tax cap. Congress wouldn't let Presidents attack other nations willy-nilly, because there wouldn't be enough money. Most programs at all levels of government would have to be abolished, and civil society and voluntary cooperation will re-emerge. H.L. Mencken's dream: a government that barely escapes being no government at all.
I also like that the plan is to run in Republican primaries. As I wrote at LRC some months back, instead running as a 3rd party candidate, run first in the primary of the dominant party in your area.
This will be a good measure of the breadth, depth, and commitment of the Southern movement - and the rest of us. If Southerners won't get D.C. off their back, no one will.
The American Mein Kampf
Michael Moriarty on Edmund Wilson:
Most Americans haven't read To the Finland Station by Edmund Wilson for the same reason that most Germans don't pick up Hitler's Mein Kampf. To the Finland Station is indeed an odious piece of work, in which a "civilized" man salutes the invading barbarians.
[...]
As I prepare to enter the Presidential race in 2008, it helps to simplify, find the common denominators in all the opposition candidates, particularly those primary volunteers of the Democratic Party, and know with some certainty where they will all ultimately be coming from.
William Clinton called To the Finland Station a "marvelous book," and did so while he took the same train Lenin did when he reentered Czarist Russia on the way to St. Petersburg. How could such an obvious and self-declared admirer of the Soviet founding fathers be so fast-tracked to the White House?
Clinton would make the Third Way happen (see my previous editorial on The Third Way To Metaphysical Treason). That is Clinton's title for what the Republican Party seems to have tacitly agreed to. If the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, George H.W. Bush, could almost hand the White House over to Clinton in 1992, the Company of Langley, Va., must have surely been prepared for an entirely new bipartisan agenda. When did that happen?
Under Richard Nixon.
Kissinger's realpolitik amounted to no more than convincing the conservatives that worldwide Socialism was inevitable, the only "realistic" path for the U.S. to take. The previous President, Lyndon Johnson, had instituted the Great Society, a program that made Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal look anemic by comparison. Kissinger was eager to tell Moscow and Beijing that Washington would run the New World Socialist Order. Why did Nixon's first term look like Johnson's second term, including the escalation of the war into Cambodia? Both U.S. political parties had agreed to succumb to Socialism as long as their Cold War enemies knew who would run it.
The children of America knew instinctively that America's founding fathers did not intend for their country to be the bully on the block. Thus the left proved to the right that the human heart will buy a charitable idea, even if the charity is forced at the point of a gun, an Internal Revenue Service summons or a lien on everyone's house and back forty.
Most Americans haven't read To the Finland Station by Edmund Wilson for the same reason that most Germans don't pick up Hitler's Mein Kampf. To the Finland Station is indeed an odious piece of work, in which a "civilized" man salutes the invading barbarians.
[...]
As I prepare to enter the Presidential race in 2008, it helps to simplify, find the common denominators in all the opposition candidates, particularly those primary volunteers of the Democratic Party, and know with some certainty where they will all ultimately be coming from.
William Clinton called To the Finland Station a "marvelous book," and did so while he took the same train Lenin did when he reentered Czarist Russia on the way to St. Petersburg. How could such an obvious and self-declared admirer of the Soviet founding fathers be so fast-tracked to the White House?
Clinton would make the Third Way happen (see my previous editorial on The Third Way To Metaphysical Treason). That is Clinton's title for what the Republican Party seems to have tacitly agreed to. If the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, George H.W. Bush, could almost hand the White House over to Clinton in 1992, the Company of Langley, Va., must have surely been prepared for an entirely new bipartisan agenda. When did that happen?
Under Richard Nixon.
Kissinger's realpolitik amounted to no more than convincing the conservatives that worldwide Socialism was inevitable, the only "realistic" path for the U.S. to take. The previous President, Lyndon Johnson, had instituted the Great Society, a program that made Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal look anemic by comparison. Kissinger was eager to tell Moscow and Beijing that Washington would run the New World Socialist Order. Why did Nixon's first term look like Johnson's second term, including the escalation of the war into Cambodia? Both U.S. political parties had agreed to succumb to Socialism as long as their Cold War enemies knew who would run it.
The children of America knew instinctively that America's founding fathers did not intend for their country to be the bully on the block. Thus the left proved to the right that the human heart will buy a charitable idea, even if the charity is forced at the point of a gun, an Internal Revenue Service summons or a lien on everyone's house and back forty.
We need some [Gene] McCarthyism
So said Pat Buchanan on Monday:
Gene McCarthy broke Johnson's presidency and converted the anti-war movement into a mass political movement. Four days after New Hampshire, Robert Kennedy leapt into the race. Two weeks later, Johnson announced he would not run.
Nixon's victory in 1968, over a divided Democratic Party, became, with 1932, one of the two seminal elections of the 20th century.
Prediction: A Eugene McCarthy will appear soon to pressure and challenge Hillary Clinton in 2008, if Hillary does not convert herself into an anti-war candidate.
Why? Because
the anti-war constituency has now grown to where it can sustain, and will demand, a national candidate to carry its case to the country.
What about the Republican Party?
There may well be one, but how such a candidate can be nominated by a party that will be forever associated with the Iraq war is impossible to see.
Paging Walter Jones ... paging Ron Paul... paging Chuck Hagel...
Jones, the former hawk and weasel of "Freedom Fries" fame, is angry that we went to war on false pretenses, and is building a "Homeward Bound" coaltion to begin withdrawal from Iraq by Oct 1, 2006 - a month before Congressional elections.
Guys like Jones can be frustrating. He deserves a slap in the face for voting the Iraq resolution in the first place. He's paid a lot of money to be informed. Why did the alternative press, and Pat Buchanan in the mainstream press, predict that Iraq would turn out this way? How could Congress be that wrong? As Buchanan wrote today:
From President Bush's Axis of Evil speech in January 2002 to the invasion in March 2003, some of us argued vehemently and ceaselessly against going to war.
We saw no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. We saw no threat from a nation unable even to shoot down a single U.S. plane during 40,000 sorties in the previous decade. We warned that an occupation of Iraq would create our own Lebanon. And so it has.
But we lost the debate of 2003. The warnings of opponents were brushed aside, and, with the Senate Democratic leadership behind him, Bush took us to war. Two years have now elapsed, and our leaders cannot even agree on whether we are winning or losing the war.
Nevertheless, Jones, Justin Raimondo reports, said he
"felt deceived when he was told that so-called 'neoconservatives' in the Pentagon had wanted to invade Iraq long before Sept. 11," and he recalls how he got "'very, very upset' when he learned there were no weapons of mass destruction 'and that information was manipulated to justify the invasion.'"
Conservatives like Jones have been manipulated, lied to, and led around by the nose, with the neocons playing Lynndie England on the other end of the leash. Now they are rising up, demanding an exit strategy – and an explanation. And it isn't just Jones: Rep. Howard Coble, a fellow Republican in the North Carolina congressional delegation, has met with Jones and is "leaning toward supporting" Jones' resolution. It's red-on-red – and the split in the GOP over the war issue is widening. Senator Chuck Hagel, said to be eyeing a White House run, has joined the chorus of Republican voices calling for a reevaluation, if not a reversal, of our failed policy in Iraq.
"Things aren't getting better," says Senator Hagel, "they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
There is still enough isolationism and realism among Republicans for the party to come to its senses. Let's hope the 2006 election will be a turning point and that there can be a Peace candidate from both parties in 2008.
Gene McCarthy broke Johnson's presidency and converted the anti-war movement into a mass political movement. Four days after New Hampshire, Robert Kennedy leapt into the race. Two weeks later, Johnson announced he would not run.
Nixon's victory in 1968, over a divided Democratic Party, became, with 1932, one of the two seminal elections of the 20th century.
Prediction: A Eugene McCarthy will appear soon to pressure and challenge Hillary Clinton in 2008, if Hillary does not convert herself into an anti-war candidate.
Why? Because
the anti-war constituency has now grown to where it can sustain, and will demand, a national candidate to carry its case to the country.
What about the Republican Party?
There may well be one, but how such a candidate can be nominated by a party that will be forever associated with the Iraq war is impossible to see.
Paging Walter Jones ... paging Ron Paul... paging Chuck Hagel...
Jones, the former hawk and weasel of "Freedom Fries" fame, is angry that we went to war on false pretenses, and is building a "Homeward Bound" coaltion to begin withdrawal from Iraq by Oct 1, 2006 - a month before Congressional elections.
Guys like Jones can be frustrating. He deserves a slap in the face for voting the Iraq resolution in the first place. He's paid a lot of money to be informed. Why did the alternative press, and Pat Buchanan in the mainstream press, predict that Iraq would turn out this way? How could Congress be that wrong? As Buchanan wrote today:
From President Bush's Axis of Evil speech in January 2002 to the invasion in March 2003, some of us argued vehemently and ceaselessly against going to war.
We saw no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. We saw no threat from a nation unable even to shoot down a single U.S. plane during 40,000 sorties in the previous decade. We warned that an occupation of Iraq would create our own Lebanon. And so it has.
But we lost the debate of 2003. The warnings of opponents were brushed aside, and, with the Senate Democratic leadership behind him, Bush took us to war. Two years have now elapsed, and our leaders cannot even agree on whether we are winning or losing the war.
Nevertheless, Jones, Justin Raimondo reports, said he
"felt deceived when he was told that so-called 'neoconservatives' in the Pentagon had wanted to invade Iraq long before Sept. 11," and he recalls how he got "'very, very upset' when he learned there were no weapons of mass destruction 'and that information was manipulated to justify the invasion.'"
Conservatives like Jones have been manipulated, lied to, and led around by the nose, with the neocons playing Lynndie England on the other end of the leash. Now they are rising up, demanding an exit strategy – and an explanation. And it isn't just Jones: Rep. Howard Coble, a fellow Republican in the North Carolina congressional delegation, has met with Jones and is "leaning toward supporting" Jones' resolution. It's red-on-red – and the split in the GOP over the war issue is widening. Senator Chuck Hagel, said to be eyeing a White House run, has joined the chorus of Republican voices calling for a reevaluation, if not a reversal, of our failed policy in Iraq.
"Things aren't getting better," says Senator Hagel, "they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
There is still enough isolationism and realism among Republicans for the party to come to its senses. Let's hope the 2006 election will be a turning point and that there can be a Peace candidate from both parties in 2008.
Iraq is a lot like Racism
And I'm not just talking about the vested interests who make a living keeping both problems alive. Mike Tuggle compares Morris Dees of the Souther Poverty Law Center to President Bush:
Both men owe their success to their powers of communication. Both can expertly fill their audiences with absolute certainty that devils are about to take them in their sleep – unless they heed their warnings. Dees and Bush use trumped-up facts and fanciful terrors as precision tools to get what they want, and continued use has only sharpened their bright edges. In 1996, Dees pronounced his judgment that “racists” were behind a wave of arson targeting black churches throughout the South. When subsequent investigation revealed that the rate of black church fires had not increased, The Charlotte Observer concluded that Dees had "misinformed" the press. In a 1999 fundraising letter, Dees wrote, “The danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past ten years.” The Klan’s miniscule numbers, bizarrely inept public relations (who’s ever been won over by a cross burning?), and non-existent political clout suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, Klansmen, neo-Nazis, skinheads, and radical libertarians lurk under the bed of every good-hearted liberal – that is, if one accepts Morris Dees’ unrelenting revelations.
Painting vivid pictures of threat and danger has made George W. Bush a venerated war president. In early 2003 he warned us that, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Trembling, we wondered, what kind of weapons? Bush decided we could handle the details: “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
And it got worse. Bush declared that Saddam commanded unmanned drones that could cover American cities in clouds of anthrax spores and blistering chemical agents. Saddam had bioterror vans that could roam America at will, bioengineering invisible killers as they cruised our interstate highways. But worst of all, Saddam was minutes, hours, days away from developing nuclear weapons, as Bush gravely informed a skittish nation in his 2003 State of the Union address:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
They thrill us, chill us, and keep changing the facts to fit their stories, and we love them for it. Dees has been the subject of a made-for-TV movie, and is portrayed by the media as an heroic crusader against hate. Bush, our commander-in-chief in the war to preserve freedom, still commands the devotion of his followers, as evidenced by numerous prayer vigils, rallies, and the 2004 elections.
The most significant similarity these two men share is their Manichaean-Gnostic belief that they and their supporters are virtuous, and their enemies are evil.
Both men owe their success to their powers of communication. Both can expertly fill their audiences with absolute certainty that devils are about to take them in their sleep – unless they heed their warnings. Dees and Bush use trumped-up facts and fanciful terrors as precision tools to get what they want, and continued use has only sharpened their bright edges. In 1996, Dees pronounced his judgment that “racists” were behind a wave of arson targeting black churches throughout the South. When subsequent investigation revealed that the rate of black church fires had not increased, The Charlotte Observer concluded that Dees had "misinformed" the press. In a 1999 fundraising letter, Dees wrote, “The danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past ten years.” The Klan’s miniscule numbers, bizarrely inept public relations (who’s ever been won over by a cross burning?), and non-existent political clout suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, Klansmen, neo-Nazis, skinheads, and radical libertarians lurk under the bed of every good-hearted liberal – that is, if one accepts Morris Dees’ unrelenting revelations.
Painting vivid pictures of threat and danger has made George W. Bush a venerated war president. In early 2003 he warned us that, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Trembling, we wondered, what kind of weapons? Bush decided we could handle the details: “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
And it got worse. Bush declared that Saddam commanded unmanned drones that could cover American cities in clouds of anthrax spores and blistering chemical agents. Saddam had bioterror vans that could roam America at will, bioengineering invisible killers as they cruised our interstate highways. But worst of all, Saddam was minutes, hours, days away from developing nuclear weapons, as Bush gravely informed a skittish nation in his 2003 State of the Union address:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
They thrill us, chill us, and keep changing the facts to fit their stories, and we love them for it. Dees has been the subject of a made-for-TV movie, and is portrayed by the media as an heroic crusader against hate. Bush, our commander-in-chief in the war to preserve freedom, still commands the devotion of his followers, as evidenced by numerous prayer vigils, rallies, and the 2004 elections.
The most significant similarity these two men share is their Manichaean-Gnostic belief that they and their supporters are virtuous, and their enemies are evil.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Warring against Radical Islam
I wrote this letter to the editor in response to The Real War is Against Radical Islam, Stupid! by Mike Thomson at the Partial Observer. Concluding remark:
Third, fighting “radical Islam” is really a fight against all Arabs and all Moslems. If the tables were turned, the USA was weak and a foreign superpower declared war on “fundamentalist Christianity,” everyone would know that this would really be a war against a) all Americans and b) all Christians all over the world. This is because you can’t separate fundamentalist Christians from the rest of the population, and there is no possible agreed upon line between “reasonable” Christianity and the fundamentalist sort. In the ensuing war, every single insurgent fighting this superpower would be called a “fundamentalist” when in reality they could just be normal people defending their country, their families, and their property.
It would also be clear that such a war could not be “won” by either side, and that it is best to not wage such a war.
Third, fighting “radical Islam” is really a fight against all Arabs and all Moslems. If the tables were turned, the USA was weak and a foreign superpower declared war on “fundamentalist Christianity,” everyone would know that this would really be a war against a) all Americans and b) all Christians all over the world. This is because you can’t separate fundamentalist Christians from the rest of the population, and there is no possible agreed upon line between “reasonable” Christianity and the fundamentalist sort. In the ensuing war, every single insurgent fighting this superpower would be called a “fundamentalist” when in reality they could just be normal people defending their country, their families, and their property.
It would also be clear that such a war could not be “won” by either side, and that it is best to not wage such a war.
Labels:
Partial Observer
Why Freedom?
My comment at the St. George blog:
I consider the arguments for the "necessity" of government to be self-refuting. If, left alone without coercive force, we would tend to be free and resonsible, then we wouldn't need government.
But, if men are naturally evil, then the men who govern us would be naturally evil as well. Evil men acquire a monopoly of force, and then impose other forms of monopoly.
In other words, all the sins and foibles of men - all the reasons to distrust the free market, are the very same sins and foibles which should make us distrust government all the more.
I consider the arguments for the "necessity" of government to be self-refuting. If, left alone without coercive force, we would tend to be free and resonsible, then we wouldn't need government.
But, if men are naturally evil, then the men who govern us would be naturally evil as well. Evil men acquire a monopoly of force, and then impose other forms of monopoly.
In other words, all the sins and foibles of men - all the reasons to distrust the free market, are the very same sins and foibles which should make us distrust government all the more.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
We're talking about flag desecration, man
USA Today reports that upcoming Senate vote on Flag Desecration Amendment will be a cliffhanger. It further states that there's been one frickin flag desecration all year.
Vache Folle has some thoughts. Here are mine, with apologies to Allen Iverson.
We're sitting here, looking at a $400 billion deficit, and we're talking about flag desecration. I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about flag desecration, not abortion, not medical marijuana, not Supreme Court decisions that actually affect people's lives, but we're talking about flag desecration. Not the war where our boys go out there and die, waking up every day thinking it might be their last, but we're talking about flag desecration, man. How silly is that?
Now I know that patriotism means a lot to people and I'm not shoving that aside like it don't mean anything. I know it's important, I honestly do but we're talking about flag desecration. We're talking about flag desecration man. We're talking about flag desecration. We're talking about flag desecration. We're not talking about Social Security. We're talking about flag desecration. When you come to Washington D.C., and you see the inner-city crime, you've seen the War on Drugs right, you've seen people lose their property, but we're talking about flag desecration right now.
Vache Folle has some thoughts. Here are mine, with apologies to Allen Iverson.
We're sitting here, looking at a $400 billion deficit, and we're talking about flag desecration. I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about flag desecration, not abortion, not medical marijuana, not Supreme Court decisions that actually affect people's lives, but we're talking about flag desecration. Not the war where our boys go out there and die, waking up every day thinking it might be their last, but we're talking about flag desecration, man. How silly is that?
Now I know that patriotism means a lot to people and I'm not shoving that aside like it don't mean anything. I know it's important, I honestly do but we're talking about flag desecration. We're talking about flag desecration man. We're talking about flag desecration. We're talking about flag desecration. We're not talking about Social Security. We're talking about flag desecration. When you come to Washington D.C., and you see the inner-city crime, you've seen the War on Drugs right, you've seen people lose their property, but we're talking about flag desecration right now.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Thursday, June 16, 2005
A Victory in Canada
Any government "public" service or facility will always have its waste and inefficiency. That is why even advocates of socialized education, postal services, health care, transit, or whatever, must concede the right and freedom of the individual to seek out or provide private alternatives to the public system. If the public system is so great, there wouldn't be the need for them; if the public system is falling apart, the people would only be victimized if private options were prohibited. To illustrate:
"Oh, no, your private college can't have a library. Our city has a public library. Use that."
"Your private college library provides a far superior collection than the public system. That is unfair to the people who can not afford to go to your college and must depend on the public system. Shut it down."
The necessity for private alternatives is even more important when it comes to health care. As Steve Chapman provides some good news from Canada:
The program, said the court, has such serious flaws that it is violating constitutional rights and must be fundamentally changed. And the flaws, far from being unique to Quebec, are part of the basic structure of Canada's health-care policy.
[...]
In some cases, the delay lasts longer than the person enduring it. Or as the Supreme Court put it: "Patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."
Not only does the government subject its citizens to painful and even fatal delays in the public system, it bars them from seeking alternatives in the private market. You see, it's illegal for private insurers to pay for services covered by the public system.
That policy is what forced the Supreme Court to order changes. "The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance," it declared, "is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."
Prohibiting access to private insurance. It is amazing, simply amazing, that any country that is called a "free society" could even contemplate such a thing, let alone legislate it. Of course, "reasonable services" ought to be in the eye of the individual, not the government or the Supreme Court. Let's hope the Court's ruling is just the start for real free market reform in Canada.
"Oh, no, your private college can't have a library. Our city has a public library. Use that."
"Your private college library provides a far superior collection than the public system. That is unfair to the people who can not afford to go to your college and must depend on the public system. Shut it down."
The necessity for private alternatives is even more important when it comes to health care. As Steve Chapman provides some good news from Canada:
The program, said the court, has such serious flaws that it is violating constitutional rights and must be fundamentally changed. And the flaws, far from being unique to Quebec, are part of the basic structure of Canada's health-care policy.
[...]
In some cases, the delay lasts longer than the person enduring it. Or as the Supreme Court put it: "Patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."
Not only does the government subject its citizens to painful and even fatal delays in the public system, it bars them from seeking alternatives in the private market. You see, it's illegal for private insurers to pay for services covered by the public system.
That policy is what forced the Supreme Court to order changes. "The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance," it declared, "is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."
Prohibiting access to private insurance. It is amazing, simply amazing, that any country that is called a "free society" could even contemplate such a thing, let alone legislate it. Of course, "reasonable services" ought to be in the eye of the individual, not the government or the Supreme Court. Let's hope the Court's ruling is just the start for real free market reform in Canada.
A Contrarian Spirit
My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:
Two decades ago Allan Bloom published The Closing of the American Mind. I never read it, but I would question the premise of the title. It appears that for most of our history, the American mind has always been closed. In any given situation, all possibilities seemed to narrow to two. Democrat or Republican. Liberal or conservative. Permissiveness or prohibition. Red state or blue. Progressive or fundamentalist. We are a nation of absolutes: what is good in some places, must be imposed everywhere. What is bad for some, must be banned everywhere. We crave ideals, not truth. We strive for moral perfection, not liberty. For only closed minds can conclude that because recreational drug use is considered dangerous and immoral, cancer patients should not be allowed to consume marijuana to control their nausea and boost their appetites.
Two decades ago Allan Bloom published The Closing of the American Mind. I never read it, but I would question the premise of the title. It appears that for most of our history, the American mind has always been closed. In any given situation, all possibilities seemed to narrow to two. Democrat or Republican. Liberal or conservative. Permissiveness or prohibition. Red state or blue. Progressive or fundamentalist. We are a nation of absolutes: what is good in some places, must be imposed everywhere. What is bad for some, must be banned everywhere. We crave ideals, not truth. We strive for moral perfection, not liberty. For only closed minds can conclude that because recreational drug use is considered dangerous and immoral, cancer patients should not be allowed to consume marijuana to control their nausea and boost their appetites.
Labels:
Partial Observer
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Who Owns Walter E. Williams?
Walter Williams on Click It or Ticket:
For those who agree with "Click It or Ticket" because it saves lives, would they agree with other possible lifesaving mandates?
Each year, obesity claims the lives of 300,000 Americans and adds over $100 billion to health-care costs. Should government enforce a 2,000-calorie intake limit per day? There's absolutely no dietary reason to add salt to our meals. Salt can lead to hypertension-induced heart attacks that kill thousands. Should government outlaw salt consumption? Sedentary lifestyles have been shown to lead to shorter and less healthy lives. Should there be government-mandated exercise programs?
The justifications used for "Click It or Ticket" can easily provide the template for government control of our diets and other lifestyle features. Maybe I'm a bit out of touch with today's Americans. With the silence in the face of attacks on Burger King and McDonald's, alleging they cause obesity, maybe Americans are pining for more government control over their lives – and "Click It or Ticket" is just softening up the rest of us for what lies ahead in the future.
For those who agree with "Click It or Ticket" because it saves lives, would they agree with other possible lifesaving mandates?
Each year, obesity claims the lives of 300,000 Americans and adds over $100 billion to health-care costs. Should government enforce a 2,000-calorie intake limit per day? There's absolutely no dietary reason to add salt to our meals. Salt can lead to hypertension-induced heart attacks that kill thousands. Should government outlaw salt consumption? Sedentary lifestyles have been shown to lead to shorter and less healthy lives. Should there be government-mandated exercise programs?
The justifications used for "Click It or Ticket" can easily provide the template for government control of our diets and other lifestyle features. Maybe I'm a bit out of touch with today's Americans. With the silence in the face of attacks on Burger King and McDonald's, alleging they cause obesity, maybe Americans are pining for more government control over their lives – and "Click It or Ticket" is just softening up the rest of us for what lies ahead in the future.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Fear keeps the people in line
From the inbox, a reminder of how guilt and fear plagues good and decent people:
My half brother died of AIDS, and I helped his grieving mom take him weed so he could eat a few meals and not puke...I remember taking my pot out to Jamie's car, and telling his Mom it was okay, (she was scared shitless), just give it to him, his buddy would help him smoke it, and then he could eat...this law-abiding woman was torn up about getting INTO TROUBLE(!!!) because she wanted her kid to be able to get some nourishment while he was dying!!!
My half brother died of AIDS, and I helped his grieving mom take him weed so he could eat a few meals and not puke...I remember taking my pot out to Jamie's car, and telling his Mom it was okay, (she was scared shitless), just give it to him, his buddy would help him smoke it, and then he could eat...this law-abiding woman was torn up about getting INTO TROUBLE(!!!) because she wanted her kid to be able to get some nourishment while he was dying!!!
Winding Down
The decision to dedicate this blog over the past week to Peter McWilliams was prompted by the Gonzales v. Raich Supreme Court decision, and the realization that the fifth anniversery of his death (which is today) was approaching.
I did not know Peter McWilliams, nor did we have much if anything in common in terms of lifestyle and life experience. But that's probably all the more reason why I wanted to get to know him better. And reading things by and about him was fun, always interesting, and often enlightening. Which prompts even greater anger over his death. He was a sick man, yes. Nobody knows when he would have died. But he had the means - the medication - to continue a productive life for several years at least. And it was taken from him by the State.
The Police State was alive and well in 2000, under Clinton, before Bush, before the PATRIOT Act. The forces that want to spread State coercion into every aspect of our lives were already present and active.
It is no surprise that so many people meekly subject themselves to the humiliation of airport security searches, let the feds spy on them (I have nothing to hide!), and in general are willing to exchange freedom for security. Nothing there is substantially different from meekly complying with the War on Drugs, which has assaulted civil liberties long before the War on Terror was conceived. You can't be outraged at one, without being outraged by the other; if you agree with one, you'd probably consent to the other.
This may or may not be the last of the Peter McWilliams blogging. I have no plans to blog more or search for more about him, but that's not to say I won't come across more about him through my regular blogsurfing. Thanks to Sunni, the Freeman, Matthew at Strike-the-root, and anyone and everyone else who called attention to this project.
I'll end with this, from Sunni Maravillosa's Memorial:
The Thought Police killed Peter McWilliams in hopes they would silence his voice. They've accomplished that, but only in a literal way. By killing my friend, our would-be rulers have strengthened my resolve, and will create new activists out of many of those who've previously been silent.
I think Peter would consider that a fitting tribute.
I did not know Peter McWilliams, nor did we have much if anything in common in terms of lifestyle and life experience. But that's probably all the more reason why I wanted to get to know him better. And reading things by and about him was fun, always interesting, and often enlightening. Which prompts even greater anger over his death. He was a sick man, yes. Nobody knows when he would have died. But he had the means - the medication - to continue a productive life for several years at least. And it was taken from him by the State.
The Police State was alive and well in 2000, under Clinton, before Bush, before the PATRIOT Act. The forces that want to spread State coercion into every aspect of our lives were already present and active.
It is no surprise that so many people meekly subject themselves to the humiliation of airport security searches, let the feds spy on them (I have nothing to hide!), and in general are willing to exchange freedom for security. Nothing there is substantially different from meekly complying with the War on Drugs, which has assaulted civil liberties long before the War on Terror was conceived. You can't be outraged at one, without being outraged by the other; if you agree with one, you'd probably consent to the other.
This may or may not be the last of the Peter McWilliams blogging. I have no plans to blog more or search for more about him, but that's not to say I won't come across more about him through my regular blogsurfing. Thanks to Sunni, the Freeman, Matthew at Strike-the-root, and anyone and everyone else who called attention to this project.
I'll end with this, from Sunni Maravillosa's Memorial:
The Thought Police killed Peter McWilliams in hopes they would silence his voice. They've accomplished that, but only in a literal way. By killing my friend, our would-be rulers have strengthened my resolve, and will create new activists out of many of those who've previously been silent.
I think Peter would consider that a fitting tribute.
How Did Peter Die?
You quote William F. Buckley verbatim, you may end up spreading myth rather than fact. If so, I apologize. I was alerted by Michael Simmons, author of this article,which gives a fuller picture of McWilliams and his case, that McWilliams did not choke to death on his own vomit. As the article states,
In the early evening of Sunday, June 11, a fire broke out in McWilliams's home. Billy Rader, a neighbor and friend, placed a ladder to the second-story window and helped McWilliams to the ground. Peter had suffered some smoke inhalation and scrapes and bruises, but was relatively unscathed and refused hospitalization. The house, however, was severely damaged, and the computer in which the manuscript of his latest book was stored was wrecked. The book, said to have been "the truth" about his case, was lost. Understandably, Peter was reported "upset and depressed."
A few days later, on the afternoon of Wednesday, June 14, McWilliams's housekeeper, Natalie Fisher, summoned Rader back to the house. McWilliams had gone into the bathroom earlier and was not responding to her calls. Unable to open the door, Rader was forced to break it in. In the bathroom he discovered McWilliams's body.
The claims that McWilliams had died from vomiting began circulating the next day. In an e-mail to his supporters dated June 15, Ann McCormick, Todd's mother, wrote, "The preliminary cause of death is listed as asphyxiation. It appears that [McWilliams] was alone, vomited, and was unable, in his weakened state, to clear his airway." But the coroner's report, released on July 27, says McWilliams had 80 percent occlusion of the left main coronary artery and left anterior descending artery, and that he died of coronary artery disease - a heart attack. No foul play or trauma. Natural causes. No reference to vomiting.
Nonetheless, some activists shall not be swayed. "The government obviously got to the coroner," one prominent hempster told me. "It doesn't matter," said Kevin Zeese, the president of Common Sense for Drug Policy, when advised of the autopsy's conclusion. "He was tortured to death by the government."
In the early evening of Sunday, June 11, a fire broke out in McWilliams's home. Billy Rader, a neighbor and friend, placed a ladder to the second-story window and helped McWilliams to the ground. Peter had suffered some smoke inhalation and scrapes and bruises, but was relatively unscathed and refused hospitalization. The house, however, was severely damaged, and the computer in which the manuscript of his latest book was stored was wrecked. The book, said to have been "the truth" about his case, was lost. Understandably, Peter was reported "upset and depressed."
A few days later, on the afternoon of Wednesday, June 14, McWilliams's housekeeper, Natalie Fisher, summoned Rader back to the house. McWilliams had gone into the bathroom earlier and was not responding to her calls. Unable to open the door, Rader was forced to break it in. In the bathroom he discovered McWilliams's body.
The claims that McWilliams had died from vomiting began circulating the next day. In an e-mail to his supporters dated June 15, Ann McCormick, Todd's mother, wrote, "The preliminary cause of death is listed as asphyxiation. It appears that [McWilliams] was alone, vomited, and was unable, in his weakened state, to clear his airway." But the coroner's report, released on July 27, says McWilliams had 80 percent occlusion of the left main coronary artery and left anterior descending artery, and that he died of coronary artery disease - a heart attack. No foul play or trauma. Natural causes. No reference to vomiting.
Nonetheless, some activists shall not be swayed. "The government obviously got to the coroner," one prominent hempster told me. "It doesn't matter," said Kevin Zeese, the president of Common Sense for Drug Policy, when advised of the autopsy's conclusion. "He was tortured to death by the government."
Champion of Liberty
Ann McCormick, mother of Todd McCormick, Peter McWilliams' "partner in crime," accepts on Peter's behalf the Libertarian Party's Champion of Liberty award in 2000. Excerpts of speech:
Peter had many passions. Like many of us he was born into the Cold War and McCarthyism. He heard the horror stories of what would happen if we did not "Keep the world safe for Democracy". Peter believed in Democracy. He believed in the principles set down by the founders of this nation. He believed that the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness was our birthright.
He continually strived to remind us, and our leaders of that.
Unfortunately, the government of our childhood sold us a bill of goods that time is proving to be useless.
The privileges and protections that we believed to be our birthright have been stripped away. As Big Brother becomes more intrusive; as distrust, greed and the lust for power and control grow - the fabric of our lives, our families and our nation are falling by the wayside.
When will it end? Not until each and every one of us JUST SAYS NO to this unbridled abuse of power, waste of precious resources and unspeakable crimes against the American People and the United States Constitution.
...
Peter's philosophy, was that each and every one of us should have the liberty to do anything we desire - as long as our actions do not infringe on the rights of a non-consenting other.
In Peter's own words, " those who choose to go above and beyond that, who choose to work for change, to make the government more moral, more accountable, more "right," who look at what is and say there is great harm being done and we must stop it because we can stop it and we can stop it now--these are my heroes, my friends, my compatriots."
...
Peter McWilliams encounter with the healing effects of marijuana was as personal as one can get. Marijuana became Peter's lifeline to wellness.
Peter certainly was a nightmare to the proponents of the drug war. He certainly did not fit the stereotype of the hippie activist or the skid row junkie Czar McCaffrey and his buddies like to point fingers at as they scream - "See. It's a hoax! It's all a hoax."
Peter - and Todd, proved that the drug warriors claims against the evil weed were rooted in their own hysteria to keep afloat over 63 years of callous lies.
These two men embodied the most dangerous of advocates - articulate, intelligent, gifted. They shared a vision and a commitment - that they would not rest until medical marijuana is available to every sick person who needs it.
Why would they risk everything for this cause? Because they both had learned first hand that medical marijuana WORKS.
It truly is that simple.
...
The gateway to any misuse of any substance is the appeal of forbidden fruit and the LIES. The Damn LIES.
My son was not lied to. He was not given a titillating view of a benign herbal remedy. He was taught to use, not abuse. He was given facts, not lies - upon which to form his adult judgements.
In our case - what happened when we gave medical marijuana to a 9 year old. He grew up to be an environmentally responsible vegetarian - who does not drink alcohol, shuns prescription drugs and is militantly anti-tobacco.
Through years of tedious trial and error, Todd developed an holistic lifestyle that maintained his strength and appetite, controlled his pain and provided a sense of overall health, well-being and clarity. Marijuana was one spoke of that wheel, as were a vegan diet, breathing and stretching exercises, the martial arts.. He adhered to a regiment that kept him healthy, was environmentally kind and did not harm any living thing.
It is not the individual drugs that are the danger to our children - it is the lies, the propaganda, the greed and the deep insatiable need in our society to control and punish. The WAR ON DRUGS IS AMERICA'S DRUG PROBLEM.
Peter knew that. So did Todd. In truth, I believe, so do many of those who set and enforce drug policy in America. The later unfortunately, march to a different drummer than you or I. They will sell their souls, their integrity and their common sense for power and personal gain. WE WILL NOT.
For their dedication and commitment Peter and Todd were crucified - Hounded, harassed and punished. Todd sits in a federal prison, denied appeal bond by the very judge who signed Peter McWilliam's death sentence.
The prosecutors, and the judge threw the United States Constitution out the window to accomplish their goal.
We learned time and again over the past three years that Machavelianism is the accepted practice in today's United States. The U.S. Drug policy is bought and paid for - and these good public servants have learned their goosestep well.
This was a tremendous blow to both Todd and Peter who believed, with all their hearts in democracy and the Constitution. They worked diligently on their defense, believing that in court, the truth would be heard - only to be bound and gagged by the judge at the 11th hour.
Why? So the United States government could foster and protect the interests of the chosen, well-heeled, well-positioned few who run our lives and our government from behind the scenes.
YOU are the people who can - and will - break that hold. You, who reject the lies and propaganda of the two major parties - and stand firmly rooted to fight for the principles upon which this country was founded.
Mark Twain once said, "In the beginning of a change, The Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
As I look around this room tonight, I look at the faces of the American Patriots of the 21st century.
We are not engaged in a battle of US vs. THEM. We are engaged in a battle of TRUTH vs. LIES. We can and we will win this war. Our lives and our future depend on it.
Peter once mused, "Who can follow Jefferson?"
At the time, I didn't have an answer. Tonight I do.
For your eloquence, your love of liberty and justice, your perseverance against all adversity - big and small.
You can, Mr. McWilliams.
Your wisdom and compassion live on, like Jefferson, through your written words.
Thank you, Peter, for sharing your life and your passions with us.
God Bless You and may you rest in peace.
Peter had many passions. Like many of us he was born into the Cold War and McCarthyism. He heard the horror stories of what would happen if we did not "Keep the world safe for Democracy". Peter believed in Democracy. He believed in the principles set down by the founders of this nation. He believed that the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness was our birthright.
He continually strived to remind us, and our leaders of that.
Unfortunately, the government of our childhood sold us a bill of goods that time is proving to be useless.
The privileges and protections that we believed to be our birthright have been stripped away. As Big Brother becomes more intrusive; as distrust, greed and the lust for power and control grow - the fabric of our lives, our families and our nation are falling by the wayside.
When will it end? Not until each and every one of us JUST SAYS NO to this unbridled abuse of power, waste of precious resources and unspeakable crimes against the American People and the United States Constitution.
...
Peter's philosophy, was that each and every one of us should have the liberty to do anything we desire - as long as our actions do not infringe on the rights of a non-consenting other.
In Peter's own words, " those who choose to go above and beyond that, who choose to work for change, to make the government more moral, more accountable, more "right," who look at what is and say there is great harm being done and we must stop it because we can stop it and we can stop it now--these are my heroes, my friends, my compatriots."
...
Peter McWilliams encounter with the healing effects of marijuana was as personal as one can get. Marijuana became Peter's lifeline to wellness.
Peter certainly was a nightmare to the proponents of the drug war. He certainly did not fit the stereotype of the hippie activist or the skid row junkie Czar McCaffrey and his buddies like to point fingers at as they scream - "See. It's a hoax! It's all a hoax."
Peter - and Todd, proved that the drug warriors claims against the evil weed were rooted in their own hysteria to keep afloat over 63 years of callous lies.
These two men embodied the most dangerous of advocates - articulate, intelligent, gifted. They shared a vision and a commitment - that they would not rest until medical marijuana is available to every sick person who needs it.
Why would they risk everything for this cause? Because they both had learned first hand that medical marijuana WORKS.
It truly is that simple.
...
The gateway to any misuse of any substance is the appeal of forbidden fruit and the LIES. The Damn LIES.
My son was not lied to. He was not given a titillating view of a benign herbal remedy. He was taught to use, not abuse. He was given facts, not lies - upon which to form his adult judgements.
In our case - what happened when we gave medical marijuana to a 9 year old. He grew up to be an environmentally responsible vegetarian - who does not drink alcohol, shuns prescription drugs and is militantly anti-tobacco.
Through years of tedious trial and error, Todd developed an holistic lifestyle that maintained his strength and appetite, controlled his pain and provided a sense of overall health, well-being and clarity. Marijuana was one spoke of that wheel, as were a vegan diet, breathing and stretching exercises, the martial arts.. He adhered to a regiment that kept him healthy, was environmentally kind and did not harm any living thing.
It is not the individual drugs that are the danger to our children - it is the lies, the propaganda, the greed and the deep insatiable need in our society to control and punish. The WAR ON DRUGS IS AMERICA'S DRUG PROBLEM.
Peter knew that. So did Todd. In truth, I believe, so do many of those who set and enforce drug policy in America. The later unfortunately, march to a different drummer than you or I. They will sell their souls, their integrity and their common sense for power and personal gain. WE WILL NOT.
For their dedication and commitment Peter and Todd were crucified - Hounded, harassed and punished. Todd sits in a federal prison, denied appeal bond by the very judge who signed Peter McWilliam's death sentence.
The prosecutors, and the judge threw the United States Constitution out the window to accomplish their goal.
We learned time and again over the past three years that Machavelianism is the accepted practice in today's United States. The U.S. Drug policy is bought and paid for - and these good public servants have learned their goosestep well.
This was a tremendous blow to both Todd and Peter who believed, with all their hearts in democracy and the Constitution. They worked diligently on their defense, believing that in court, the truth would be heard - only to be bound and gagged by the judge at the 11th hour.
Why? So the United States government could foster and protect the interests of the chosen, well-heeled, well-positioned few who run our lives and our government from behind the scenes.
YOU are the people who can - and will - break that hold. You, who reject the lies and propaganda of the two major parties - and stand firmly rooted to fight for the principles upon which this country was founded.
Mark Twain once said, "In the beginning of a change, The Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
As I look around this room tonight, I look at the faces of the American Patriots of the 21st century.
We are not engaged in a battle of US vs. THEM. We are engaged in a battle of TRUTH vs. LIES. We can and we will win this war. Our lives and our future depend on it.
Peter once mused, "Who can follow Jefferson?"
At the time, I didn't have an answer. Tonight I do.
For your eloquence, your love of liberty and justice, your perseverance against all adversity - big and small.
You can, Mr. McWilliams.
Your wisdom and compassion live on, like Jefferson, through your written words.
Thank you, Peter, for sharing your life and your passions with us.
God Bless You and may you rest in peace.
Video of Peter's Speech at 1998 LP Convention
... and his books and other great stuff at PeterMcWilliams.org.
R.W. Bradford on McWilliams
This page includes an editorial cartoon, the thoughts of Bill Bradford of Liberty, and a transcript of McWilliams' speech to the 1998 Libertarian National Convention.
Bradford writes,
I must admit that when I learned the tragic news of Peter¹s death, my spirit was not so generous as his. I thought about the judge who had denied him his day in court and had ordered him to forgo the medication that kept him alive. I suppose he¹s happy, I said to myself, now that he¹s murdered Peter.
I¹m one of those libertarians who generally tries to look at government policies more as folly than as evil. But sometimes, the evil that government does transcends simple folly. Sometimes I have to be reminded that there is a real human cost of government. It happened when I learned of the government¹s killing of 86 people at Waco and its murder of Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge. And it happened with Peter, too.
Peter never wanted to be a martyr. But he wanted to live in a free country, where people respected each other¹s rights and choices, and he did what he thought was best to keep himself alive and to advance the cause of liberty. He was one of the most joyous people I¹ve ever known, a hero in every sense of the word.
Bradford writes,
I must admit that when I learned the tragic news of Peter¹s death, my spirit was not so generous as his. I thought about the judge who had denied him his day in court and had ordered him to forgo the medication that kept him alive. I suppose he¹s happy, I said to myself, now that he¹s murdered Peter.
I¹m one of those libertarians who generally tries to look at government policies more as folly than as evil. But sometimes, the evil that government does transcends simple folly. Sometimes I have to be reminded that there is a real human cost of government. It happened when I learned of the government¹s killing of 86 people at Waco and its murder of Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge. And it happened with Peter, too.
Peter never wanted to be a martyr. But he wanted to live in a free country, where people respected each other¹s rights and choices, and he did what he thought was best to keep himself alive and to advance the cause of liberty. He was one of the most joyous people I¹ve ever known, a hero in every sense of the word.
A (Partial) Neoconservative Lexicon
Neocon. Code word for Jews like Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, and Scoop Jackson.
And it gets better from there.
And it gets better from there.
We Miss You, Peter McWilliams
It was five years ago today (June 14) that Peter McWiliams died. As part of the ongoing remembrance I've been doing here, I wrote this essay for LewRockwell.com, on how McWiliams' death helped turned me into a libertarian.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Separate School and State!
Jeff Jacoby's on board!
Secular parents square off against believers, supporters of homosexual marriage against traditionalists, those stressing "safe sex" against those who emphasize abstinence. Each wants its views reflected in the classroom. No longer is there a common understanding of the mission of public education. To the extent that one camp's vision prevails, parents in the opposing camp are embittered. And there is no prospect that this will change -- not as long as the government remains in charge of educating American children.
Which is why it's time to put an end to government control of the schools.
There is nothing indispensable about a state role in education. Parents don't expect the government to provide their children's food or clothing or medical care; there is no reason why it must provide their schooling. An educated citizenry is a vital public good, of course. But like most such goods, a competitive and responsive private sector could do a much better job of supplying it than the public sector can.
Secular parents square off against believers, supporters of homosexual marriage against traditionalists, those stressing "safe sex" against those who emphasize abstinence. Each wants its views reflected in the classroom. No longer is there a common understanding of the mission of public education. To the extent that one camp's vision prevails, parents in the opposing camp are embittered. And there is no prospect that this will change -- not as long as the government remains in charge of educating American children.
Which is why it's time to put an end to government control of the schools.
There is nothing indispensable about a state role in education. Parents don't expect the government to provide their children's food or clothing or medical care; there is no reason why it must provide their schooling. An educated citizenry is a vital public good, of course. But like most such goods, a competitive and responsive private sector could do a much better job of supplying it than the public sector can.
If We're Fragging, We've Lost
Justin Raimondo at the Huffington Post writes:
The deaths of Captain Phillip T. Esposito and Lieutenant Louis E. Allen, on Tuesday, near Tikrit, may be the definitive argument in favor of the view that this war is another Vietnam -- or worse. A report by CNN, just out, notes "the U.S. Army disclosed that it is conducting a 'criminal investigation' into [their} deaths."
...
"The Army is looking at a number of scenarios, including accidental death, attack by an intruder or infiltrator -- and fragging, which is the killing or wounding of a fellow soldier."
There was a lot of this going on during the Vietnam war, as the historian Terry Anderson, of Texas A & M University, points out:
"During the years of 1969 down to 1973, we have the rise of fragging -- that is, shooting or hand-grenading your NCO or your officer who orders you out into the field. The US Army itself does not know exactly how many...officers were murdered. But they know at least 600 were murdered, and then they have another 1400 that died mysteriously. Consequently by early 1970, the army [was] at war not with the enemy but with itself."
A nation at war with itself -- who will win that one?
The deaths of Captain Phillip T. Esposito and Lieutenant Louis E. Allen, on Tuesday, near Tikrit, may be the definitive argument in favor of the view that this war is another Vietnam -- or worse. A report by CNN, just out, notes "the U.S. Army disclosed that it is conducting a 'criminal investigation' into [their} deaths."
...
"The Army is looking at a number of scenarios, including accidental death, attack by an intruder or infiltrator -- and fragging, which is the killing or wounding of a fellow soldier."
There was a lot of this going on during the Vietnam war, as the historian Terry Anderson, of Texas A & M University, points out:
"During the years of 1969 down to 1973, we have the rise of fragging -- that is, shooting or hand-grenading your NCO or your officer who orders you out into the field. The US Army itself does not know exactly how many...officers were murdered. But they know at least 600 were murdered, and then they have another 1400 that died mysteriously. Consequently by early 1970, the army [was] at war not with the enemy but with itself."
A nation at war with itself -- who will win that one?
Churches Promote the Worst Forms of Tyranny
Doug Newman (dougnewman@juno.com) is at it again, taking the church to task for its gutless reaction in the face of tyranny. He writes:
Many church folks will endorse the Court’s decision with all the usual clichés. “Marijuana is bad.” “Marijuana causes harm.” “Marijuana is illegal for a reason.” “There are other ways to relieve pain other than marijuana.” “People who support medical marijuana are just looking for an excuse to get stoned.”
...
Conservative Christians can be just as politically correct as those secular liberals they say they hate. Their political agenda – totally unattainable – of a drug-free America takes precedence over all other considerations. The Drug War is to these folks what gay rights and racial quotas are to liberals.
They may think they are doing the world a favor, but they are imposing tyranny. Consider the words of the great Christian author C.S. Lewis:
Nobody likes a controlling spouse, a controlling boss or a Little League parent. They always need to "make a project" out of someone else. They always say they are doing it for someone else's "own good". And they always make that person's life a living hell. History is full of overly controlling governments that made whole countries into living hells -- killing millions in some cases -- but insisted they were doing their subjects a favor.
Many church folks will endorse the Court’s decision with all the usual clichés. “Marijuana is bad.” “Marijuana causes harm.” “Marijuana is illegal for a reason.” “There are other ways to relieve pain other than marijuana.” “People who support medical marijuana are just looking for an excuse to get stoned.”
...
Conservative Christians can be just as politically correct as those secular liberals they say they hate. Their political agenda – totally unattainable – of a drug-free America takes precedence over all other considerations. The Drug War is to these folks what gay rights and racial quotas are to liberals.
They may think they are doing the world a favor, but they are imposing tyranny. Consider the words of the great Christian author C.S. Lewis:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Nobody likes a controlling spouse, a controlling boss or a Little League parent. They always need to "make a project" out of someone else. They always say they are doing it for someone else's "own good". And they always make that person's life a living hell. History is full of overly controlling governments that made whole countries into living hells -- killing millions in some cases -- but insisted they were doing their subjects a favor.
Harry Browne on Peter McWilliams
Part of an ongoing series of posts on Peter McWilliams, the writer and Drug War victim who died on June 14, 2000. From Harry Browne:
Despite his somewhat flamboyant public personality, Peter was a gentle, sensitive soul. He exhibited a tolerance toward his enemies that would have made a saint proud.
Someone once asked him why, since he was living on borrowed time anyway, he didn't get a gun and take some of the Drug Warriors to the Hereafter with him. Peter replied:
Peter was a wonderful example -- not just of tolerance, but of effectiveness. He taught us that the battle for a free, libertarian America is too important to indulge ourselves by being venomous, snide, patronizing or violent toward our opponents. We must keep our heads, be patient and help Americans understand how the government and the Drug War are hurting them.
Despite his somewhat flamboyant public personality, Peter was a gentle, sensitive soul. He exhibited a tolerance toward his enemies that would have made a saint proud.
Someone once asked him why, since he was living on borrowed time anyway, he didn't get a gun and take some of the Drug Warriors to the Hereafter with him. Peter replied:
My enemy is ignorance, not individuals. It is winning the war of ideas -- through fact, logic, persuasion and, yes, humor -- that brings about lasting change.
What we are facing today in America is not an evil dictator like Hitler, who is the head of a snake and whose removal will kill the snake -- but overgrown bureaucracies like the Drug War, which is more like an anthill. No matter how many individual ants you kill one at a time, the colony goes on.
Any idiot with a gun can kill. It takes clever perseverance to make lasting change.
As has been proven time and again, to alter the government in this country does not take violence, but education. My job is to get the country back into believing and living under the supreme law of the Constitution, not to kill those who are leading the country astray.
I support the high road of truth, facts, debate, and education even if I'm not able to walk that road much longer and even if lies, deception, repression, and ignorance are the direct cause of my death.
Peter was a wonderful example -- not just of tolerance, but of effectiveness. He taught us that the battle for a free, libertarian America is too important to indulge ourselves by being venomous, snide, patronizing or violent toward our opponents. We must keep our heads, be patient and help Americans understand how the government and the Drug War are hurting them.
End the Charade
I opposed the War on Iraq. But even if I did support it, I'd wonder now why we're still there. As Vox Day writes,
It will take years, perhaps a decade or more, before it is possible to determine ultimate success or failure in Iraq. But by some measures, the dual invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have certainly served their purpose. The Taliban and Saddam Hussein have been driven from power and they have been replaced by elected governments that are no less legitimate than our own Washington plutocracy. What, then, prevents the president from declaring victory and bringing our soldiers home? Why was it necessary for 266 Americans to die after the Jan. 31 election of a free Iraqi government?
And finally, if free elections are not enough to assert victory, what is the definition of success? Does one even exist? The metrics, nebulous as they are, appear to keep changing.
The danger is that the conspiracy theorists were right and that this was nothing but a steppingstone to a Middle East empire from the start. Michael Ledeen, the brilliant neoconservative, has been pleading for an expansion of the war to include Iran from the very start – the drums beginning to beat slowly in the media deep would appear to suggest that he's finally going to get his wish. "Faster, please"? I don't think so.
One of the great mysteries of World War II was how Germany did not go on an industrial war footing until long after the die had been cast. Ironically, although the War on Method has now lasted longer than the War in Europe, the United States has not only refused to go on a war footing, but disdains to even bother declaring war, while maintaining almost completely open borders, the better to serve enemy combatants.
...
It is time to end this charade. The troops have won the war, history proves they cannot impose a nonexistent peace. Bring them home.
It will take years, perhaps a decade or more, before it is possible to determine ultimate success or failure in Iraq. But by some measures, the dual invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have certainly served their purpose. The Taliban and Saddam Hussein have been driven from power and they have been replaced by elected governments that are no less legitimate than our own Washington plutocracy. What, then, prevents the president from declaring victory and bringing our soldiers home? Why was it necessary for 266 Americans to die after the Jan. 31 election of a free Iraqi government?
And finally, if free elections are not enough to assert victory, what is the definition of success? Does one even exist? The metrics, nebulous as they are, appear to keep changing.
The danger is that the conspiracy theorists were right and that this was nothing but a steppingstone to a Middle East empire from the start. Michael Ledeen, the brilliant neoconservative, has been pleading for an expansion of the war to include Iran from the very start – the drums beginning to beat slowly in the media deep would appear to suggest that he's finally going to get his wish. "Faster, please"? I don't think so.
One of the great mysteries of World War II was how Germany did not go on an industrial war footing until long after the die had been cast. Ironically, although the War on Method has now lasted longer than the War in Europe, the United States has not only refused to go on a war footing, but disdains to even bother declaring war, while maintaining almost completely open borders, the better to serve enemy combatants.
...
It is time to end this charade. The troops have won the war, history proves they cannot impose a nonexistent peace. Bring them home.
Veto it anyway, George
Bob Novak writes:
Republican voters' concern about fiscal responsibility is mainly directed at reducing spending. However, Republican senators last week informed Bush he will be overridden if he vetoes a highway bill whose spending levels exceed his specifications.
Veto it, George, just to get into the habit. Keep on vetoing when Congress spends more and more then you request, because you, not them, get the blame for deficits. It'll be good for you and for the country.
Republican voters' concern about fiscal responsibility is mainly directed at reducing spending. However, Republican senators last week informed Bush he will be overridden if he vetoes a highway bill whose spending levels exceed his specifications.
Veto it, George, just to get into the habit. Keep on vetoing when Congress spends more and more then you request, because you, not them, get the blame for deficits. It'll be good for you and for the country.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Conversation with Peter McWilliams, Part 3
Last excerpts from the Interview by David Jay Brown and Sherry Hall:
We are so far away from what the constitution was written as, we as well just tear the whole thing up. It's a sham. It's ridiculous. The constitution was based upon the fact the federal government had exceedingly limited powers. It was only allowed to do eighteen very limited things--the enumerated powers, period. And everything else belonged to the states and the individuals to regulate.
Now It's become such that if the constitution doesn't specifically guarantee you can have It, It's okay for the government to regulate It or make laws against It. That Is putting the constitution on Its head. It's like saying, If a woman doesn't carry a sign on her back that says you can not rape me, she has permission to be raped. It Is that. And boy, has lady liberty been raped--repeatedly.
...
Roosevelt's New Deal, which Is normally presented as this wonderful thing that saved the country, was In fact the thing that destroyed the constitution. All those medial programs had absolutely no basis in constitutional law. None.
...
If you notice, most of the constitutional decisions have been against the states, not against Congress. The Congress can pretty do whatever the hell It wants to and got away with It. However, state laws are what we are told are unconstitional. Very seldom do they declare something In Congress unconstitutional. When they do, they usually let Congress go back and take another shot at It. So there have been few things that Congress has wanted to pass that the Supreme Court hasn't said, sure go ahead. Essentially Congress can expand the federal government, and has expanded the federal government In Infinite ways.
...
David: Oh, you see the Inverse relationship between sex and violence everywhere--like when you compare bonobos to chimpanzees. Chimps are the exact opposite of bonobos. Bonobos are egalitarian. There's no male dominance. They solve their conflicts with sex. The chimps have an alpha male ruling. They have wars against each other. One male controls the sexual Interactions of the whole group, and they all have much less sex. You can see those same two patterns In human cultures too.
Peter: But the bonobos are closer to us genetically than they are to chimpanzees. I saw two different documentaries on them, and my mouth dropped open. This Is what Is natural. I have no problem being a high bonobo. I have no problem being a bonobo gold edition (laughter), a bonobo plus, a bonobo version 6.0. (laughter) I have no problem with that. It makes perfect sense In my awareness.
So the question Is, when a bonobo dies, does its consciousness go anywhere? Doubtful. (laughter) When a fly dies, does its consciousness go anywhere? Doubtful. So you ask me how I can be so certain of this. The answer s, it's much easier for me to imagine that there ain't nothing that's going to happen to me, and that there ain't nothing going with all the people who have been before, and all the animals that have been before. Because If you're going to give humans a soul and some kind of afterlife, or persistence of consciousness, you got to give it to the bonobos (laughter), and you got to give It to the parrots, etc., etc. So you have to give It to everything, and I don't give It that.
...
We live In a country populated by religious extremists, criminals, and entrepreneur. And If those aren't the three main themes that still go right through our culturereligious extremism, entrepreneurs, and criminality.
David: Wasn't there supposed to be something to do with freedom here?
Peter: Yeah, people are free--(laughter) criminals, religious extremists, and entrepreneur. If you look at the constitution, and the separation of church and state, you'll see that the constitution Is a document based upon supporting business. No doubt about It. All the founding fathers were business people. Every single one of them. By the end of the war George Washington was the richest man In America. Before the war it was John Hancock. They all had enormous business interest to gain by getting rid of Britain.
...
Now, I'm a capitalist. I'm a freemarket believer in the Milt Freedman school of thought. And there's bad capitalism, no doubt about that. But at the same time most of the bad capitalists get away with being bad capitalists because of government control. So if you get that government control out of the way, you end up with not very many bad capitalists--a whole lot less bad capitalists than you end with now.
Sherry: What do you mean when you say bad capitalists?
Peter: Well, you used the example of pharmaceutical companies who then suppress medical marijuana. But they get to do that through the government. If the government wasn't there, then all sorts of alternative therapies that worked would come to the surface, and the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't have as much power as they currently have. Pharmaceutical companies have their power not because they compete in the market place fairly, but because they are a specialinterest that lobbies Congress for laws to put them In a privileged position.
...
One of the worst things that happened was that I outed Arianna Huffington's connection to MSIA [John-Roger's Church of the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness]. Michael and Arianna Huffington were In the same group I was with John-Rogers the guru. In 1994 I let the press know that she was involved In that group, and, frankly, she handled it very poorly. She denied it, which was foolish.
She used up all her credibility with the press with that denial, because the denial was not true. Because of that airing Michael Huffington lost the election, and Diane Flensteln Is senator. Now Arianna Huffington is talking about the hopeless War on Drugs, and Diane Flenstein is the most virulent democratic anti-war senator In Congress.
...
Actually the fundamental teaching of Jesus was was really quite brilliant. His fundamental teaching was: until you make yourself absolutely perfect, don't judge another. Don't take the speck out of your brother's eye; take the beam out of your eye first.
David: Let he who Is without sin cast the first stone. Everybody must get stoned. (laughter)
Peter: Exactly. Let he who Is without sin cast the first stone. Then he lays up the attitudes, which is this Incredible system of people being perfect that no one can actually achieve. Therefore no one Is going to be perfect according to Jesus's plan, and no one has the right to judge anyone. So they have all these people not only judging, but also using It as the basis for laws, which is a complete perversion, a 180 degree distortion of what Jesus taught.
We are so far away from what the constitution was written as, we as well just tear the whole thing up. It's a sham. It's ridiculous. The constitution was based upon the fact the federal government had exceedingly limited powers. It was only allowed to do eighteen very limited things--the enumerated powers, period. And everything else belonged to the states and the individuals to regulate.
Now It's become such that if the constitution doesn't specifically guarantee you can have It, It's okay for the government to regulate It or make laws against It. That Is putting the constitution on Its head. It's like saying, If a woman doesn't carry a sign on her back that says you can not rape me, she has permission to be raped. It Is that. And boy, has lady liberty been raped--repeatedly.
...
Roosevelt's New Deal, which Is normally presented as this wonderful thing that saved the country, was In fact the thing that destroyed the constitution. All those medial programs had absolutely no basis in constitutional law. None.
...
If you notice, most of the constitutional decisions have been against the states, not against Congress. The Congress can pretty do whatever the hell It wants to and got away with It. However, state laws are what we are told are unconstitional. Very seldom do they declare something In Congress unconstitutional. When they do, they usually let Congress go back and take another shot at It. So there have been few things that Congress has wanted to pass that the Supreme Court hasn't said, sure go ahead. Essentially Congress can expand the federal government, and has expanded the federal government In Infinite ways.
...
David: Oh, you see the Inverse relationship between sex and violence everywhere--like when you compare bonobos to chimpanzees. Chimps are the exact opposite of bonobos. Bonobos are egalitarian. There's no male dominance. They solve their conflicts with sex. The chimps have an alpha male ruling. They have wars against each other. One male controls the sexual Interactions of the whole group, and they all have much less sex. You can see those same two patterns In human cultures too.
Peter: But the bonobos are closer to us genetically than they are to chimpanzees. I saw two different documentaries on them, and my mouth dropped open. This Is what Is natural. I have no problem being a high bonobo. I have no problem being a bonobo gold edition (laughter), a bonobo plus, a bonobo version 6.0. (laughter) I have no problem with that. It makes perfect sense In my awareness.
So the question Is, when a bonobo dies, does its consciousness go anywhere? Doubtful. (laughter) When a fly dies, does its consciousness go anywhere? Doubtful. So you ask me how I can be so certain of this. The answer s, it's much easier for me to imagine that there ain't nothing that's going to happen to me, and that there ain't nothing going with all the people who have been before, and all the animals that have been before. Because If you're going to give humans a soul and some kind of afterlife, or persistence of consciousness, you got to give it to the bonobos (laughter), and you got to give It to the parrots, etc., etc. So you have to give It to everything, and I don't give It that.
...
We live In a country populated by religious extremists, criminals, and entrepreneur. And If those aren't the three main themes that still go right through our culturereligious extremism, entrepreneurs, and criminality.
David: Wasn't there supposed to be something to do with freedom here?
Peter: Yeah, people are free--(laughter) criminals, religious extremists, and entrepreneur. If you look at the constitution, and the separation of church and state, you'll see that the constitution Is a document based upon supporting business. No doubt about It. All the founding fathers were business people. Every single one of them. By the end of the war George Washington was the richest man In America. Before the war it was John Hancock. They all had enormous business interest to gain by getting rid of Britain.
...
Now, I'm a capitalist. I'm a freemarket believer in the Milt Freedman school of thought. And there's bad capitalism, no doubt about that. But at the same time most of the bad capitalists get away with being bad capitalists because of government control. So if you get that government control out of the way, you end up with not very many bad capitalists--a whole lot less bad capitalists than you end with now.
Sherry: What do you mean when you say bad capitalists?
Peter: Well, you used the example of pharmaceutical companies who then suppress medical marijuana. But they get to do that through the government. If the government wasn't there, then all sorts of alternative therapies that worked would come to the surface, and the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't have as much power as they currently have. Pharmaceutical companies have their power not because they compete in the market place fairly, but because they are a specialinterest that lobbies Congress for laws to put them In a privileged position.
...
One of the worst things that happened was that I outed Arianna Huffington's connection to MSIA [John-Roger's Church of the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness]. Michael and Arianna Huffington were In the same group I was with John-Rogers the guru. In 1994 I let the press know that she was involved In that group, and, frankly, she handled it very poorly. She denied it, which was foolish.
She used up all her credibility with the press with that denial, because the denial was not true. Because of that airing Michael Huffington lost the election, and Diane Flensteln Is senator. Now Arianna Huffington is talking about the hopeless War on Drugs, and Diane Flenstein is the most virulent democratic anti-war senator In Congress.
...
Actually the fundamental teaching of Jesus was was really quite brilliant. His fundamental teaching was: until you make yourself absolutely perfect, don't judge another. Don't take the speck out of your brother's eye; take the beam out of your eye first.
David: Let he who Is without sin cast the first stone. Everybody must get stoned. (laughter)
Peter: Exactly. Let he who Is without sin cast the first stone. Then he lays up the attitudes, which is this Incredible system of people being perfect that no one can actually achieve. Therefore no one Is going to be perfect according to Jesus's plan, and no one has the right to judge anyone. So they have all these people not only judging, but also using It as the basis for laws, which is a complete perversion, a 180 degree distortion of what Jesus taught.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Conversation with Peter McWilliams Part 2
Further excerpts of an interview by David Jay Brown and Sherry Hall:
It's never penetrated me, that putting people in jail for individual behavior that wasn't harming others was justified. It just Is something that has never registered.
The specific motivation for Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do was the cover of either Time or Newsweek from the mid-eighties. The cover showed these peasants piled up like firewood, with their simple peasant clothing. They were all dead and bloody, with American troops standing around. They were from Columbia or Peru, or wherever the hell we were fighting at that particular point. American troops had killed them. They were simple peasants, who were picking coca, or whatever, and the headline was: "Winning the War on Drugs".
Sherry: Like It was a triumph.
Peter: Yes, as though this were something that we should all be very proud of. Inside there was a fifteen page series of articles, and not once did they question the wisdom of this- the right we had to send American troops into other countries to kill these peasants for growing coca.
...
I'm less Inclined to believe that sort of conspiracy thinking about them wanting to create a police state than I am to believe the more practical thinking that the Contras needed funding. And then the Contras around the world needed funding.
...
Now, of course, we know Iran-Contra was just the most obvious of what, apparently, has been an on-going process of selling drugs to Americans, in order to finance various covert operations that Congress wouldn't support. So that, I think, Is the underlying reason for the War on Drugs-- less so than they want to create a police state to control us and all that kind of stuff. I don't think they give a damn about any of that police state stuff, frankly. I think the police care about It. (laughter)
David: You mean because they're acquiring property and money?
Peter: Exactly. They just want their money to fund their favorite little causes. Follow the money--not the power--follow the money. I think that had much more to do with It than anything else.
David: But It's got to more than that. The U.S. Government would profit more from being able to tax marijuana, than from putting marijuana growers and users in prison. From an economic standpoint they'd make more money if marijuana was legal. Don't you think that they're actually afraid because marijuana tends to make people question authority and unwilling to fight in wars?
Peter: Of course they are. That was my original point about spiritual groups always banning drugs--because people who smoke marijuana tend to be very individualistic.
Sherry: They think for themselves.
Peter: It's like herding cats.
Sherry: Right, and they want us to be cattle.
...
Peter: I was diagnosed in 1996 with AIDS. I had not done any drugs at all for more than two decades. My total drug usage period, In my entire life, was limited to two years In the late 1960's, when I was about eighteen, nineteen. And then for about four or five months In the mid-1970's, which had something to do with disco. (laughter) From that point on, until my diagnosis In 1996, I was completely drug-free, primarily even alcohol-free.
I still am caffiene-free, and pretty much alcohol-free, because I consider those very harsh drugs. And I'm still marijuana-free at the moment, because of my federal government. But I was drug-free for all that time. In March, 1996 I was diagnosed with AIDS and cancer, and the various anti-nausea medications that were given to me to tolerate the chemotherapy, radiation, and AIDS medications didn't work.
...
I'm on an extension of my life. My life ended In 1996. So this Is freetime. This Is time granted to me from medical science and marijuana, and the least I can do Is put that same life--that extended life--on the line to combat the war machine.
...
I realized that I received a wonderful sense of humor from both my ItalianSicilian mother and my Irish father. I was the product of not only two cultures known for their humor, but also two individuals known for their humor. That was a gift. It Is the greatest gift that I received. I also received the genetic gift of longevity. There's longevity in my family, and I'm sure I'd be dead now If I didn't have those good peasant genes.
...
David: Why don't you flee to Holland?
Peter: (laughter) Well, I could do that. I had a whole year to that If I wanted to. I could have done it quite legally. I decided to stay and fight, and if necessary die for this particular cause. Martin Luther King said that "if you're not willing to die for something, your life's not worth living." And it's true. I decided that this is something that I would die for. I easily could have fled to Holland for that entire year. It was obvious that they were going to arrest me. It was obvious that they were trying to gather any information that they could against me. So I had a whole year In which I could have slipped away.
...
The government has for so many years now said it has no medical properties, for them to now admit that It has medical properties would also be to admit that they have tortured every cancer patient who has ever been unable maintain their chemotherapy because of nausea. They will maintain that they've tortured every chronic pain patient who hasn't been able to properly treat their pain because of addiction or whatever reason.
...
The internet allows for the truth to be there, and the truth to be found. That is what we have been missing all along--the truth. The fact that the media has chosen to filter out the truth about drugs and the Drug War for all this time will, I think, be a black stain on media's record, frankly. But, with the Internet, the truth Is out there. The truth Is definitely on the side of ending prohibition. So now--thanks to the internet--it is just a matter of time.
It's never penetrated me, that putting people in jail for individual behavior that wasn't harming others was justified. It just Is something that has never registered.
The specific motivation for Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do was the cover of either Time or Newsweek from the mid-eighties. The cover showed these peasants piled up like firewood, with their simple peasant clothing. They were all dead and bloody, with American troops standing around. They were from Columbia or Peru, or wherever the hell we were fighting at that particular point. American troops had killed them. They were simple peasants, who were picking coca, or whatever, and the headline was: "Winning the War on Drugs".
Sherry: Like It was a triumph.
Peter: Yes, as though this were something that we should all be very proud of. Inside there was a fifteen page series of articles, and not once did they question the wisdom of this- the right we had to send American troops into other countries to kill these peasants for growing coca.
...
I'm less Inclined to believe that sort of conspiracy thinking about them wanting to create a police state than I am to believe the more practical thinking that the Contras needed funding. And then the Contras around the world needed funding.
...
Now, of course, we know Iran-Contra was just the most obvious of what, apparently, has been an on-going process of selling drugs to Americans, in order to finance various covert operations that Congress wouldn't support. So that, I think, Is the underlying reason for the War on Drugs-- less so than they want to create a police state to control us and all that kind of stuff. I don't think they give a damn about any of that police state stuff, frankly. I think the police care about It. (laughter)
David: You mean because they're acquiring property and money?
Peter: Exactly. They just want their money to fund their favorite little causes. Follow the money--not the power--follow the money. I think that had much more to do with It than anything else.
David: But It's got to more than that. The U.S. Government would profit more from being able to tax marijuana, than from putting marijuana growers and users in prison. From an economic standpoint they'd make more money if marijuana was legal. Don't you think that they're actually afraid because marijuana tends to make people question authority and unwilling to fight in wars?
Peter: Of course they are. That was my original point about spiritual groups always banning drugs--because people who smoke marijuana tend to be very individualistic.
Sherry: They think for themselves.
Peter: It's like herding cats.
Sherry: Right, and they want us to be cattle.
...
Peter: I was diagnosed in 1996 with AIDS. I had not done any drugs at all for more than two decades. My total drug usage period, In my entire life, was limited to two years In the late 1960's, when I was about eighteen, nineteen. And then for about four or five months In the mid-1970's, which had something to do with disco. (laughter) From that point on, until my diagnosis In 1996, I was completely drug-free, primarily even alcohol-free.
I still am caffiene-free, and pretty much alcohol-free, because I consider those very harsh drugs. And I'm still marijuana-free at the moment, because of my federal government. But I was drug-free for all that time. In March, 1996 I was diagnosed with AIDS and cancer, and the various anti-nausea medications that were given to me to tolerate the chemotherapy, radiation, and AIDS medications didn't work.
...
I'm on an extension of my life. My life ended In 1996. So this Is freetime. This Is time granted to me from medical science and marijuana, and the least I can do Is put that same life--that extended life--on the line to combat the war machine.
...
I realized that I received a wonderful sense of humor from both my ItalianSicilian mother and my Irish father. I was the product of not only two cultures known for their humor, but also two individuals known for their humor. That was a gift. It Is the greatest gift that I received. I also received the genetic gift of longevity. There's longevity in my family, and I'm sure I'd be dead now If I didn't have those good peasant genes.
...
David: Why don't you flee to Holland?
Peter: (laughter) Well, I could do that. I had a whole year to that If I wanted to. I could have done it quite legally. I decided to stay and fight, and if necessary die for this particular cause. Martin Luther King said that "if you're not willing to die for something, your life's not worth living." And it's true. I decided that this is something that I would die for. I easily could have fled to Holland for that entire year. It was obvious that they were going to arrest me. It was obvious that they were trying to gather any information that they could against me. So I had a whole year In which I could have slipped away.
...
The government has for so many years now said it has no medical properties, for them to now admit that It has medical properties would also be to admit that they have tortured every cancer patient who has ever been unable maintain their chemotherapy because of nausea. They will maintain that they've tortured every chronic pain patient who hasn't been able to properly treat their pain because of addiction or whatever reason.
...
The internet allows for the truth to be there, and the truth to be found. That is what we have been missing all along--the truth. The fact that the media has chosen to filter out the truth about drugs and the Drug War for all this time will, I think, be a black stain on media's record, frankly. But, with the Internet, the truth Is out there. The truth Is definitely on the side of ending prohibition. So now--thanks to the internet--it is just a matter of time.
A Mystic Reads Rand
A new article series at the Partial Observer by Jonathan Wilson, an evangelical pastor, debuts.
Excerpt:
On the basis of this common ground, my hope is that the Libertarian Atheist will read these essays with as open a mind as I employed as a Libertarian Mystic reading Ayn Rand. Here is a summary of my arguments which I will develop over this series "A Mystic Reads Rand":
1. That more important than the premise of atheism in Objectivist philosophy, is the premise of consciousness.
2. That theists who have come to personal consciousness will be exhibiting objectivist principles in all of life.
3. That any Christian evangelism which promises an excuse from responsibility, a justification for mediocrity, and an entitlement to the charity of others, is a misrepresentation of the gospel.
4. That any Christian ethical formulation which induces guilt for being successful, which diminishes achievement and rewards failure, is a misrepresentation of the core principles of the faith.
5. That one's mercy and compassion for another are neither grounded in one's own guilt nor in any entitlement of the other. Mercy and compassion are grounded in two principles: one's own pleasure, and investment.
6. Concerning the investment in compassion: Rand's chief concern is that when one's mercy becomes the entitlement of another, co-dependency develops. This is of a different nature from the true quality of mercy and compassion, which on Christian principles is an investment in another person's redemption.
7. That we see redemption as a result of compassion in Rand's own characters.
8. That redemption results from an awakening to consciousness. Each awakening to redemption is celebrated as a great pleasure by Rand's characters.
Excerpt:
On the basis of this common ground, my hope is that the Libertarian Atheist will read these essays with as open a mind as I employed as a Libertarian Mystic reading Ayn Rand. Here is a summary of my arguments which I will develop over this series "A Mystic Reads Rand":
1. That more important than the premise of atheism in Objectivist philosophy, is the premise of consciousness.
2. That theists who have come to personal consciousness will be exhibiting objectivist principles in all of life.
3. That any Christian evangelism which promises an excuse from responsibility, a justification for mediocrity, and an entitlement to the charity of others, is a misrepresentation of the gospel.
4. That any Christian ethical formulation which induces guilt for being successful, which diminishes achievement and rewards failure, is a misrepresentation of the core principles of the faith.
5. That one's mercy and compassion for another are neither grounded in one's own guilt nor in any entitlement of the other. Mercy and compassion are grounded in two principles: one's own pleasure, and investment.
6. Concerning the investment in compassion: Rand's chief concern is that when one's mercy becomes the entitlement of another, co-dependency develops. This is of a different nature from the true quality of mercy and compassion, which on Christian principles is an investment in another person's redemption.
7. That we see redemption as a result of compassion in Rand's own characters.
8. That redemption results from an awakening to consciousness. Each awakening to redemption is celebrated as a great pleasure by Rand's characters.
Labels:
Partial Observer
A Conversation with Peter McWilliams
An interview by David Jay Brown and Sherry Hall from Oct 29, 1999 discussing meditation, religion, the Constitution, and, of course, marijuana. Some choice passages:
Let me make a slight aside here on the horribleness of the school system--especially as It was in the 1950's when I was growing up, and In the 1960's when I was going to high school--but this also applies to the current public education system as well. I believe that human beings learn beat when they are curious. When people have a question that is answered, they have another question. When that question is answered they have another question, which Is answered, and so forth.
Human beings learn worst when something that doesn't interest them is put at them in a regimented format, at a certain time, and corporal punishment is meted out to those who do not learn properly. And that's exactly what the public school system is all about. It's 10:00, so it's time to be curious about science. At 11:00 it's time to put science aside and be curious about geography. At 12:00 it's time to put everything aside and eat lunch, whether you're hungry or not, (laughter) and so forth.
...
Now how many seven year olds want a typewriter for Christmas? (laughter) And I got one.
...
By the time I was a senior in high school (1966-67) I was supposed to have read five different books In sociology. I hadn't read any of them. I asked the teacher could I please write some poetry about society Instead of writing five book reports. The teacher no more wanted to read five more book reports, than I wanted to write five book reports (laughter), so he said, "Sure, go ahead."
So I wrote what was published as poems on society. They were called The Chicken Died While Kicking. The Chicken Dead, Kept Kicking: Poems on Society. (laughter) It included such memorable poems as "What Is the Racial Situation In America? Rather Dim, about 3000 Watts", which was Inspired by the Watts riots that had just happened. It also Included such things as, "What Is the Zen situation In America? Very Good--One Watt."
...
That's when I left T.M., at the point where they were talking about all this levitation stuff. No one could levitate for me, and having been the author of the #1 New York Times Bestseller on the subject, I was certainly entitled to a private demonstration of levitation (laughter), If indeed it existed.
...
Peter: That's what I mean by an "external" God. God is in everything including us. That is what you find on LSD, and that Is exactly what Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven is within you ... Our Father who art in heaven." That's two direct quotes from Jesus. "The kingdom of Heaven is within you." One of the least quoted of all of the direct quotes of Jesus.
The Pairaseis asked him, "Where is the kingdom of heaven?" "The kingdom of heaven," he said, "is within you." Then when his disciples asked, "Teach us how to pray", the first line was "Our Father, who art in heaven". Where's heaven? Within you.
David: Right. Then Jesus said that in order to enter the gates of heaven you must become like a child.
Peter: Yes! Absolutely. Precisely. Jesus said, "To enter the kingdom of heaven you must become like a child." And what's a child like? What does marijuana do but turn you Into a child? It turns you Into a curious, delightful, living-in-the-moment, sensual being.
...
Almost all spiritual paths remove drugs. Why? Because almost all spiritual paths have to do with control.
...
Peter: Having spent the majority of my life misled, I believe, by Majarishi, and by the Beatles, for not denouncing Majarishi--damn it! (laughter)--I sort of got off Into this world of spirituality. It's like that Dylan song about "we were so much older then, I'm younger than that now". (laughter) In 1968 or 9, boy did I have my life together.(laughter) When I was 18 or 19 I was quite happy a materialist. I was an entrapenuer. I was making money on my romantic poetry. I was quite content with the notion that I evolved through a natural evolutionary process, and that I lived In a universe, and a world, that was explainable by scientific theory.
...
Peter: The pleasure-deficit disorder Is found in people who, for whatever reason--either psychological trauma in their youth, or physiological Imbalances at birth--are unable to experience ordinary pleasure through ordinary activities. These people, which include me, then start looking for extraordinary means to find pleasure.
These are the people who are then open to--as I was--the con men of the world.
more to come
Let me make a slight aside here on the horribleness of the school system--especially as It was in the 1950's when I was growing up, and In the 1960's when I was going to high school--but this also applies to the current public education system as well. I believe that human beings learn beat when they are curious. When people have a question that is answered, they have another question. When that question is answered they have another question, which Is answered, and so forth.
Human beings learn worst when something that doesn't interest them is put at them in a regimented format, at a certain time, and corporal punishment is meted out to those who do not learn properly. And that's exactly what the public school system is all about. It's 10:00, so it's time to be curious about science. At 11:00 it's time to put science aside and be curious about geography. At 12:00 it's time to put everything aside and eat lunch, whether you're hungry or not, (laughter) and so forth.
...
Now how many seven year olds want a typewriter for Christmas? (laughter) And I got one.
...
By the time I was a senior in high school (1966-67) I was supposed to have read five different books In sociology. I hadn't read any of them. I asked the teacher could I please write some poetry about society Instead of writing five book reports. The teacher no more wanted to read five more book reports, than I wanted to write five book reports (laughter), so he said, "Sure, go ahead."
So I wrote what was published as poems on society. They were called The Chicken Died While Kicking. The Chicken Dead, Kept Kicking: Poems on Society. (laughter) It included such memorable poems as "What Is the Racial Situation In America? Rather Dim, about 3000 Watts", which was Inspired by the Watts riots that had just happened. It also Included such things as, "What Is the Zen situation In America? Very Good--One Watt."
...
That's when I left T.M., at the point where they were talking about all this levitation stuff. No one could levitate for me, and having been the author of the #1 New York Times Bestseller on the subject, I was certainly entitled to a private demonstration of levitation (laughter), If indeed it existed.
...
Peter: That's what I mean by an "external" God. God is in everything including us. That is what you find on LSD, and that Is exactly what Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven is within you ... Our Father who art in heaven." That's two direct quotes from Jesus. "The kingdom of Heaven is within you." One of the least quoted of all of the direct quotes of Jesus.
The Pairaseis asked him, "Where is the kingdom of heaven?" "The kingdom of heaven," he said, "is within you." Then when his disciples asked, "Teach us how to pray", the first line was "Our Father, who art in heaven". Where's heaven? Within you.
David: Right. Then Jesus said that in order to enter the gates of heaven you must become like a child.
Peter: Yes! Absolutely. Precisely. Jesus said, "To enter the kingdom of heaven you must become like a child." And what's a child like? What does marijuana do but turn you Into a child? It turns you Into a curious, delightful, living-in-the-moment, sensual being.
...
Almost all spiritual paths remove drugs. Why? Because almost all spiritual paths have to do with control.
...
Peter: Having spent the majority of my life misled, I believe, by Majarishi, and by the Beatles, for not denouncing Majarishi--damn it! (laughter)--I sort of got off Into this world of spirituality. It's like that Dylan song about "we were so much older then, I'm younger than that now". (laughter) In 1968 or 9, boy did I have my life together.(laughter) When I was 18 or 19 I was quite happy a materialist. I was an entrapenuer. I was making money on my romantic poetry. I was quite content with the notion that I evolved through a natural evolutionary process, and that I lived In a universe, and a world, that was explainable by scientific theory.
...
Peter: The pleasure-deficit disorder Is found in people who, for whatever reason--either psychological trauma in their youth, or physiological Imbalances at birth--are unable to experience ordinary pleasure through ordinary activities. These people, which include me, then start looking for extraordinary means to find pleasure.
These are the people who are then open to--as I was--the con men of the world.
more to come
Friday, June 10, 2005
It's About Supply and Demand
Butler Shaffer's comment at the LRC blog:
It should be evident, even to supporters of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, that the central problem the establishment has with marijuana - as well as most other illegal substances - is the inability of the government to control its supply. Marijuana abounds even where it is not wanted. If there was a way for the supply of marijuana to be monopolized in the hands of the drug companies, it would be legalized in a flash, and sold at $20 per reefer. Should that day arrive, those who are now indifferent to the suffering of others, will instantly strike the pose of "caring" people, and insist that Congress end this ban.
It should be evident, even to supporters of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, that the central problem the establishment has with marijuana - as well as most other illegal substances - is the inability of the government to control its supply. Marijuana abounds even where it is not wanted. If there was a way for the supply of marijuana to be monopolized in the hands of the drug companies, it would be legalized in a flash, and sold at $20 per reefer. Should that day arrive, those who are now indifferent to the suffering of others, will instantly strike the pose of "caring" people, and insist that Congress end this ban.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Peter McWilliams Case - In His Own Words
The basic facts of the case through 02-02-2000. Click here for the full account with all the links. Here are excerpts:
In mid-March 1996, I was diagnosed with AIDS and an AIDS-related cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, on the same day. (Beware the Ides of March, indeed.)
The chemotherapy and radiation for the cancer and combination therapy for the AIDS caused extreme nausea. If you can't keep the life-saving pills in the system, they do no good. After trying all the prescription anti-nausea medications my doctors had to offer, I turned to medical marijuana.
The medical marijuana ended the nausea within minutes, and I was able to continue treatment. The cancer went into remission. My AIDS viral load dropped from 12,500 to undetectable and remained undetectable from April 1996 until my arrest in July 1998.
I told myself that, if I lived, I would devote my life to getting medical marijuana to all the sick people who needed it. I lived, and I began my campaign.
...
I was questioned by four DEA Special Agents. They gave me an interesting--and telling--piece of information. All four said they had known about me for some time, because most every bust they go on, they find a copy of my book Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country. They didn't say it, but it was clear that, to them, I was the guy who wrote the bestselling book against the Vietnam War, the DEA Special Agents were the Green Berets. I was a traitor to their cause, and I was spreading my treachery through the written word. My recollection of DEA questioning.
...
On December 1, 1997, I published as an advertisement in Variety a two-page essay highly critical of then-DEA Administrator Constantine's harsh criticism of the sitcom character Murphy Brown's use of medical marijuana to quell the nausea of chemotherapy. Variety ad.
As you can yell by even a quick skim of the Variety ad, the DEA was not happy with moi. Seventeen days later, on December 17, 1999, nine DEA agents came a-callin' with the IRS and a search warrant in tow. I was handcuffed, sat in a chair, and watched as they spend the next three hours going through every piece of paper, sheet by sheet, in my home. They found an ounce or two of medical marijuana, but they didn't seem to be looking for drugs; they were looking for information.
The DEA and IRS agents then repeated this at my brother's house and at the office of my publishing company, Prelude Press, Inc. Of eight computers they had to choose from, they took only my personal computer, the one with my unfinished books on it. Their reason for taking this was that they were looking for records of drug transactions. If this were the case, why didn't they take the computer in the accounting department at Prelude Press? Could they have been looking for something else, such as that book critical of the DEA I told them I was working on? They also took "eight plastic bags" of documents that I was not allowed to see and which have not yet been returned.
...
When the computer containing all my books-in-progress was returned to me a month later, it had somehow caught a pernicious virus that took six weeks, several thousand dollars, and the purchase of a new computer to eliminate. The gap this caused in my publishing business was financially devastating.
Then began the Starr Treatment. One after another, federal grand jury subpoenas began arriving at my home and publishing company--some were for records, some were for people. During the next seven months every current employee, an unknown number of past employees, all my friends, my neighbor, and my electrician were called to testify before the grand jury. I was never called nor was I ever given an opportunity to present my side of the story. It's called a grand jury because it's a grand time for prosecutors. My medical records were subpoenaed. My accountant was ordered to produce overnight, in the middle of the tax season, all references in his files about me. This was quite a request, as he had been my account for thirty years. (After this, understandably, my accountant chose to no longer represent me. All but one of my employees have left as well.)
The DEA, with the full cooperation of the Lexus Company, installed a tracking device on my Lexus. (The DEA came onto private property, broke the car, and when it was towed to the Lexus dealership for repair, the tracking device was installed. The device failed to work, as it turns out, so the DEA and the Lexus dealership repeated the whole charade again.) After tracking it for a few months, the DEA impounded the car overnight, thus triggering the lease revocation clause. That’s a little-known clause in every lease that says if a federal agency impounds the car, even overnight, the lease is revoked and the entire amount of the lease becomes due. I didn’t have that amount, so my credit was ruined. I wrote the president of Lexus, as the car was financed through Lexus, and asked for some compassion. Right. Janet Reno has shown me more kindness.
...
Nineteen days later, on July 23, 1999, nine DEA agents again came to my door at 6:00 AM. This time they didn't want my computer--they wanted me. I was arrested, handcuffed, and taken--as they say in all the cop shows--"downtown." Naturally, I was not permitted the use of medical marijuana before leaving the house, so I vomited. One of the DEA agents, genuinely concerned, asked, "Isn't there something you can take to settle your stomach?" I turned my head from the bowl long enough to give him the sort of wearily ironic look we gay folk perfected sometime around the Inquisition era, when, just before being burned at the stake, the executioner would ask, “I’m not tying these ropes too tight, am I?” The agent saw the error of his sudden burst of compassion, said, “Oh, yeah,” and continued processing my arrest with the trained indifference Hormel provides to hogs.
...
Although I fully expected to be arrested, the high bond was a surprise. Months before, my lawyer had written the federal prosecutors a letter saying that I knew I was going to be arrested, that I wasn’t going anywhere, and all they had to do was tell me where and when to appear for arraignment and I’d be there. Hardly the action of a flight risk. I though I would be released with little or no bail. The court’s own pretrial services recommended a bond of $50,000. The prosecutors, however, insisted on $250,000. As usual in federal court, the prosecutors got what they wanted. I was in custody four weeks while my mother and brother arranged to put up their houses as bail. The combined value of the houses was not enough, and a friend put up the rest in cash.
...
The conditions of my release on bail specifically prohibited the use of marijuana, a prohibition enforced by random urine testing. If I failed to meet this condition of release, my disabled mother’s and brother’s houses would be taken away and I would remain in prison until and during my trial.
The nausea caused by the AIDS medication has been unrelenting. My doctor prescribed one antinausea medication after another, to no avail. Using medical marijuana to keep down my combination therapy resulted in more than two years of an “undetectable” viral load. (The viral load is a measure of active AIDS virus per milliliter of blood.) AIDS doctors become alarmed when it rises above 10,000. When mine had reached its previous high of 12,500 in March 1996, an AIDS-related cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, had already developed.
Unable to keep down my AIDS medication, my viral load rose from 279 on August 21, 1998, to 3,789 by October 20, 1998. Less than two weeks later, on November 2, 1998, it had skyrocketed to 254,600. My T-cells (helper cells central to immune-system function) fell by 26 percent. In the three months following the arrest I lost 30 pounds, 15 percent of my total body weight.
...
Although the ruling was a disappointment, two weeks later came glorious news. The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. The IOM report found that (a) marijuana is medicine, (b) marijuana is not a gateway drug, (c) there is currently no alternative to smoked marijuana for some patients, (d) patients who need medical marijuana should be able to obtain approval within 24 hours, (e) if marijuana is addictive at all it is only mildly so and any withdrawal symptoms are minimal, and (f) there is no reason to believe that medical marijuana will increase recreational marijuana use.
...
From November 1998 onward I have not been able to hold down more than one on three doses of my AIDS medication. The high AIDS viral load feels as though I have the flu all the time. I sleep 18 to 20 hours a day. I have maybe four productive hours in every 24, most of them spent trying to keep my head financially above water. I have so much to say, so many ideas and discoveries I want to communicate, and very little time or clarity of mind to do so.
...
On November 5, 1999, disaster: the trial judge ruled I cannot use medical marijuana defense, nor can I mention Proposition 215, marijuana's medical usefulness, the 8 patients who get medical marijuana monthly from the federal government, or my medical condition. Press Release, November 5, 1999, Los Angeles Times/Associated Press article, November 6, 1999, New York Times Story, November 7, 1999.
Faced with judge's ruling, I pled guilty to a lesser charge so as not to spend a mandatory ten years in federal prison. My comments here. Los Angeles Times story, November 20, 1999, New York Times story, November 21, 1999, William F. Buckley, Jr., column, November 30, 1999.
2-2-2000 (what a date!) Wonderful, wonderful news! Although it costs me four hours of agony each day, my AIDS viral load is now UNDETECTABLE!
Please help keep me out of federal prison by writing a letter to the judge.
In mid-March 1996, I was diagnosed with AIDS and an AIDS-related cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, on the same day. (Beware the Ides of March, indeed.)
The chemotherapy and radiation for the cancer and combination therapy for the AIDS caused extreme nausea. If you can't keep the life-saving pills in the system, they do no good. After trying all the prescription anti-nausea medications my doctors had to offer, I turned to medical marijuana.
The medical marijuana ended the nausea within minutes, and I was able to continue treatment. The cancer went into remission. My AIDS viral load dropped from 12,500 to undetectable and remained undetectable from April 1996 until my arrest in July 1998.
I told myself that, if I lived, I would devote my life to getting medical marijuana to all the sick people who needed it. I lived, and I began my campaign.
...
I was questioned by four DEA Special Agents. They gave me an interesting--and telling--piece of information. All four said they had known about me for some time, because most every bust they go on, they find a copy of my book Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country. They didn't say it, but it was clear that, to them, I was the guy who wrote the bestselling book against the Vietnam War, the DEA Special Agents were the Green Berets. I was a traitor to their cause, and I was spreading my treachery through the written word. My recollection of DEA questioning.
...
On December 1, 1997, I published as an advertisement in Variety a two-page essay highly critical of then-DEA Administrator Constantine's harsh criticism of the sitcom character Murphy Brown's use of medical marijuana to quell the nausea of chemotherapy. Variety ad.
As you can yell by even a quick skim of the Variety ad, the DEA was not happy with moi. Seventeen days later, on December 17, 1999, nine DEA agents came a-callin' with the IRS and a search warrant in tow. I was handcuffed, sat in a chair, and watched as they spend the next three hours going through every piece of paper, sheet by sheet, in my home. They found an ounce or two of medical marijuana, but they didn't seem to be looking for drugs; they were looking for information.
The DEA and IRS agents then repeated this at my brother's house and at the office of my publishing company, Prelude Press, Inc. Of eight computers they had to choose from, they took only my personal computer, the one with my unfinished books on it. Their reason for taking this was that they were looking for records of drug transactions. If this were the case, why didn't they take the computer in the accounting department at Prelude Press? Could they have been looking for something else, such as that book critical of the DEA I told them I was working on? They also took "eight plastic bags" of documents that I was not allowed to see and which have not yet been returned.
...
When the computer containing all my books-in-progress was returned to me a month later, it had somehow caught a pernicious virus that took six weeks, several thousand dollars, and the purchase of a new computer to eliminate. The gap this caused in my publishing business was financially devastating.
Then began the Starr Treatment. One after another, federal grand jury subpoenas began arriving at my home and publishing company--some were for records, some were for people. During the next seven months every current employee, an unknown number of past employees, all my friends, my neighbor, and my electrician were called to testify before the grand jury. I was never called nor was I ever given an opportunity to present my side of the story. It's called a grand jury because it's a grand time for prosecutors. My medical records were subpoenaed. My accountant was ordered to produce overnight, in the middle of the tax season, all references in his files about me. This was quite a request, as he had been my account for thirty years. (After this, understandably, my accountant chose to no longer represent me. All but one of my employees have left as well.)
The DEA, with the full cooperation of the Lexus Company, installed a tracking device on my Lexus. (The DEA came onto private property, broke the car, and when it was towed to the Lexus dealership for repair, the tracking device was installed. The device failed to work, as it turns out, so the DEA and the Lexus dealership repeated the whole charade again.) After tracking it for a few months, the DEA impounded the car overnight, thus triggering the lease revocation clause. That’s a little-known clause in every lease that says if a federal agency impounds the car, even overnight, the lease is revoked and the entire amount of the lease becomes due. I didn’t have that amount, so my credit was ruined. I wrote the president of Lexus, as the car was financed through Lexus, and asked for some compassion. Right. Janet Reno has shown me more kindness.
...
Nineteen days later, on July 23, 1999, nine DEA agents again came to my door at 6:00 AM. This time they didn't want my computer--they wanted me. I was arrested, handcuffed, and taken--as they say in all the cop shows--"downtown." Naturally, I was not permitted the use of medical marijuana before leaving the house, so I vomited. One of the DEA agents, genuinely concerned, asked, "Isn't there something you can take to settle your stomach?" I turned my head from the bowl long enough to give him the sort of wearily ironic look we gay folk perfected sometime around the Inquisition era, when, just before being burned at the stake, the executioner would ask, “I’m not tying these ropes too tight, am I?” The agent saw the error of his sudden burst of compassion, said, “Oh, yeah,” and continued processing my arrest with the trained indifference Hormel provides to hogs.
...
Although I fully expected to be arrested, the high bond was a surprise. Months before, my lawyer had written the federal prosecutors a letter saying that I knew I was going to be arrested, that I wasn’t going anywhere, and all they had to do was tell me where and when to appear for arraignment and I’d be there. Hardly the action of a flight risk. I though I would be released with little or no bail. The court’s own pretrial services recommended a bond of $50,000. The prosecutors, however, insisted on $250,000. As usual in federal court, the prosecutors got what they wanted. I was in custody four weeks while my mother and brother arranged to put up their houses as bail. The combined value of the houses was not enough, and a friend put up the rest in cash.
...
The conditions of my release on bail specifically prohibited the use of marijuana, a prohibition enforced by random urine testing. If I failed to meet this condition of release, my disabled mother’s and brother’s houses would be taken away and I would remain in prison until and during my trial.
The nausea caused by the AIDS medication has been unrelenting. My doctor prescribed one antinausea medication after another, to no avail. Using medical marijuana to keep down my combination therapy resulted in more than two years of an “undetectable” viral load. (The viral load is a measure of active AIDS virus per milliliter of blood.) AIDS doctors become alarmed when it rises above 10,000. When mine had reached its previous high of 12,500 in March 1996, an AIDS-related cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, had already developed.
Unable to keep down my AIDS medication, my viral load rose from 279 on August 21, 1998, to 3,789 by October 20, 1998. Less than two weeks later, on November 2, 1998, it had skyrocketed to 254,600. My T-cells (helper cells central to immune-system function) fell by 26 percent. In the three months following the arrest I lost 30 pounds, 15 percent of my total body weight.
...
Although the ruling was a disappointment, two weeks later came glorious news. The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. The IOM report found that (a) marijuana is medicine, (b) marijuana is not a gateway drug, (c) there is currently no alternative to smoked marijuana for some patients, (d) patients who need medical marijuana should be able to obtain approval within 24 hours, (e) if marijuana is addictive at all it is only mildly so and any withdrawal symptoms are minimal, and (f) there is no reason to believe that medical marijuana will increase recreational marijuana use.
...
From November 1998 onward I have not been able to hold down more than one on three doses of my AIDS medication. The high AIDS viral load feels as though I have the flu all the time. I sleep 18 to 20 hours a day. I have maybe four productive hours in every 24, most of them spent trying to keep my head financially above water. I have so much to say, so many ideas and discoveries I want to communicate, and very little time or clarity of mind to do so.
...
On November 5, 1999, disaster: the trial judge ruled I cannot use medical marijuana defense, nor can I mention Proposition 215, marijuana's medical usefulness, the 8 patients who get medical marijuana monthly from the federal government, or my medical condition. Press Release, November 5, 1999, Los Angeles Times/Associated Press article, November 6, 1999, New York Times Story, November 7, 1999.
Faced with judge's ruling, I pled guilty to a lesser charge so as not to spend a mandatory ten years in federal prison. My comments here. Los Angeles Times story, November 20, 1999, New York Times story, November 21, 1999, William F. Buckley, Jr., column, November 30, 1999.
2-2-2000 (what a date!) Wonderful, wonderful news! Although it costs me four hours of agony each day, my AIDS viral load is now UNDETECTABLE!
Please help keep me out of federal prison by writing a letter to the judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
