I'm going to try that vacation again, since it fell apart last month. I'll be gone for a bit. Here's a picture from my last vacation, by the way.
Vacation
Vacation Time:
Government Sucks
The Decline of Government:
From the beginning, I wanted to find out how the PRTs were reaching out to Americans, and to help them do so. It took weeks to get an answer to a pair of questions that any corporation could answer in minutes: How do you do your recruitment? Where are jobs posted?
I don't mention that to criticize State, which is standing up a PRT program highly praised by our military commanders, in spite of the serious difficulties facing that program. There was and is no hostility involved. Everyone wants the program to work; we're all trying our best to make it happen. I only mention it to explore the problems facing government. This is the nature of the beast. Government is too complex, with too many rules and regulations, too many agencies, and too many jobs to handle.
Even with a facilitator -- me, in this case -- who is outside the regulations and can simply "make things happen" if he can get the information, it still takes weeks. When the facilitator has authority within the bureaucracy, he can demand answers faster -- but he also then adds to the complexity of the problem. There is another layer of authority pushing and pulling; in addition to your direct boss, you now have a "dotted line" boss who can give orders.
That creates another set of competitions internally, between your "real" and your "dotted line" bosses. It may help one problem, but it creates new problems -- problems that echo throughout the system. Consider the question of the guy two agencies away who needs a ruling or an action from you, so a second agency can take an action, which will free his agency to move forward. Does he try to contact your real boss, or your dotted-line boss? Both? What does the competition between them do to the request? Does he instead just ask the guy the next level up -- the boss of both of them -- for an answer? What will going over their heads do to the request?
Americans are coming to understand that there are strict limits on what government can accomplish. We are scaling back our expectations and hopes for government in light of those problems. Some of the problems may be susceptible to computer and processing based solutions, so that real improvements can be made in efficiency. Others may be "competence" based, and better leadership might help. Many or most, however, are hard limits.
The government has overreached. It isn't capable of doing what it has set out to do. This just isn't the time for a new, expanded role for government: it's a time to scale it back, and pass off some of these problems to smaller, private entities that can actually maneuver well enough to solve those problems. These may be families; they may be churches; they may be corporations. They have the freedom to do what government simply cannot.
In The Chronicle of Higher Education, E. J. Dionne Jr. has a piece that proclaims a new 'liberal moment' in American politics. It wants to be a serious piece, and I want to treat it seriously. Before I can begin to do so, however, I have to deal with a deep-seated infection that poisons the whole body of work: a hysteria against the Bush administration that prevents real insights in many places.
Dionne views the Bush administration as a "catastrophe" that has destroyed conservatism in American minds, and made ready the way for a new liberal rise. You have to read the whole piece to understand the real flavor here. Nearly everything tracks to Bush and the Bush administration. Even the larger problems facing liberals profiting from Bush, are also Bush's fault: for example, the fact that Americans now distrust government remedies to problems (because, Dionne says, of Bush "incompetence" at running the government re: Katrina and so forth).
This page has often defended Bush, and often clashed with him and his administration on specific issues. As a veteran of the Clinton administration clashes, however, I would warn those on the left to rethink their certainties about Bush. Unless they can do that, they will not understand the seriousness of the problems facing the American government. "Bush" is not even the tip of the iceberg.
Even at this short remove in time, when one thinks of the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, one rarely remembers the figure of Bill Clinton at all. At the time he seemed to loom large to those of us alarmed by his penchant for gun control, cronyism, and right-wingers; but in retrospect, he was really not terribly important. He was a better man than he seemed to be, that is, he had good qualities as well as the faults that focused out attentions.
Since 2001, this page has praised Bill Clinton's manners; also, we have defended Clinton from outrageous attacks; and wished him good health. As hard as it may be to conceive, writers from the left may find themselves doing the same thing for Bush in the near future.
The truth about Clinton and also Bush is that the office of the Presidency envelops them in an illusion of power, as well as with some actual power. Nevertheless, they have nothing like the capacities we imagine for them. Men are only men, and our system of government is most greatly hampered by its bureaucracies, which are incompetent in the way that large organizations always are and cannot but be; and by its design, which hampers the power of the branches on purpose, in order that liberty may exist in the tension between the various powers.
The vision of what "a good President would have done" instead of what Bush/Clinton actually did only rarely conforms to the reality of what a president can do. I was deeply embittered by Clinton's return of Elian Gonzales to the Cuban state, for example. The boy's mother had died getting him to a land of freedom; and now he would be sent back to tyranny. The Communists in Cuba would subject him to all sorts of brainwashing to make him a model spokesman for their state; and in order to do so, would have to demonize his mother in his mind. The seizure of a young boy from his family at gunpoint was an awful image, and one that ought still to haunt us.
There was probably never a moment at which I was angrier at the government of the United States. I still feel it was the wrong decision, badly wrong; but at this remove, I can see by what forces Clinton was being driven. For one thing, there were interest group politics at work, and he needed their support. For another, the Elian matter required making an exception to the usual processes of law; and while I think an exception was justified, and the role of the President includes making exceptions when necessary, it is always a difficult thing for a President to advocate.
Meanwhile, an idle comment he had made about refugees from Haiti had started a deluge on his assumption of office; how much more would his actual granting of asylum drive refugees to swarm Florida? How many of them might drown in the perilous crossing? Clinton partisans have also suggested he had a more noble consideration: if all the democratic-minded Haitians or Cubans fled the island, how much harder would the processes of democratization be when the current governments fell? That was an ongoing process in Haiti during Clinton's tenure, and could have happened with Castro's death at any time in Cuba.
So it is with Bush and many of the things that it is currently popular to lay at his feet. Dionne makes much of Katrina, for example. Without defending the Bush administration at all, it does not take much to see that the disaster in New Orleans was caused by forces far greater than any President or his administration.
For one thing, FEMA is not the chief agency for disaster relief; it intends to supplement and reinforce state and local efforts. The state and local efforts in NOLA were simply not there. JHD can tell you about how he hotshotted a truckload of relief supplies in right after the hurricane, and was supposed to hook up with state/local government to see where they were needed. When he got there, the radio was dead silent. It wasn't until the Federal government showed up -- the Coast Guard, as I recall -- that there was anyone to contact him.
Which brings us to the second matter: the Coast Guard and US military efforts in NOLA -- also directed by the Bush administration, at least in theory -- were far better than is generally recognized. People have a lot to say about FEMA, but little about the Navy SEALs.
For a third, the awareness of the problems with the levees had extended back through the Clinton administration. The problem is mirrored in the recent bridge collapse in Minnesota -- and in the thousands of similar bridges around the country, which are already overdue for repair.
For a fourth, problems such as the 10% "matching" requirement of the Stafford act required Congressional action, not just Administration action -- and Congress took its time.
It is possibly correct to say, "Bush should have done more," or that his priorities should have been more on Katrina and less on Iraq; however, with the benefit of time, it will become clear that even if he had done all he could do, and even if it had been his chief priority, the state and local failures and the inattention of a previous decade would have made the results more similar than not to what we've actually gotten.
The conceptual project of "rebuilding New Orleans" is one that has gotten a lot of attention on the left, because it's the sort of project that excites them -- the idea of using government to effect major changes for the better in people's lives. It's nobly intentioned, but it isn't about FEMA incompetence. It's about the failures of government and government bureaucracy, at every level.
It's not that the system didn't work as it should. It's that a system this large and complex can't be expected to work any better. There are too many rules and too many agencies and parties involved. There are so very many rules, in fact, that it takes all a man's mind to understand the ones pertaining to his own agency and those directly interacting with it. When he hits a roadblock two agencies out -- say, he needs money from FEMA, but FEMA has to get approval from someone in his state government -- it's like trying to understand a chess problem when you can't see the board.
Worse, the problem can be more than two agencies out. It can be more than one problem at once. The problems can be self-reinforcing, as either laws or bureaucratic interests force two agencies into competition for who can have control, or who has to pay.
Until you are willing to come to grips with that basic reality, you can't do more than say, "We'd do it better." That's fine; but it's an article of faith. There's no reason to believe that, even if you were perfect, the results on the ground would be substantially better.
We've talked recently about the Social Security / Medicare / Federal pension debacle that is impending. It is an example of a problem that is distributed across society: caring for the "Baby Boom"-now-"Aged Boom" will affect every family in America, at the same time that government is having to pay out benefits that are currently not figured into our budget forecasts. It cannot meet its existing promises. American families will be left holding the bag, caring for their own as well as they can with what they have, but remembering that government promised to do more.
This basic distrust of government is not Bush's fault. It will not be repaired by some future administration, no matter how wonderfully "competent" it may be.
The truth is that the system itself has exceeded its capacity. New government-based programs are doomed before being written; they may be enacted by some Congress of 2009, but they will fail. Our system is already too big and too complex to function coherently. It may stagger on, until the financial crises posed by the pensions and Social Security force a scaling back of Federal activity. Once that happens, no one will trust government with anything on which they might actually depend for survival. They will remember how it handled the last things they entrusted to it.
For the future, we will be looking more and more to private actors. This is good, in the sense that it means an end to the system that produces Americans accustomed to being treated like children instead of responsible adults. It is bad, in that it means serious challenges for our society in the medium and long term.
"Bush" is currently serving as a magic talisman for those on the left who don't want to face this reality about government, about its destructive size and complexity. That talisman protects them from thinking deeply about the issue: they can pick out two or ten things they think he should have done differently, and say that would have made all the difference.
The real problems are far starker, and far larger, than any man or his administration.
UPDATE: I'd like to point out that the Katrina example is only an example. The problems extend to all areas of government operation. Consider Iraq, which Dionne also does.
It is normal to blame Bush here as well, and Dionne follows the usual script. We've all heard how there was no "Phase IV" planning, etc. And in fact, Bush is really responsible, but not (or not only) for the reasons normally cited. The problem appears to be that State and DOD had competing visions for postwar Iraq, and their attempts to plan and devise were derailed mostly by competition between different branches and factions within the government. As a result, we got a cobbled-together CPA in which it wasn't terribly clear -- even while it was running -- who was really in charge.
It has taken years for this to improve, and only through painful experience has it done so. Major General Cone in Afganistan says that things are finally ironed out there, through the building over years of personal relationships that allowed them to establish memoranda of understanding between the agencies.
Bush is personally responsible for not forcing an interagency settlement before the Iraq war; but we see it was also a problem in Afghanistan. It is also a problem in the Katrina case. It's a problem everywhere the government tries to do anything -- or rather, it's two problems, the ones described above. It's the problem of agencies that are either in bureaucratic competition, or are legally forced to insist on requirements before they can consider cooperation; and, it's the "chess-problem without the board" problem. You find yourself blocked at several points, and you can't quite see what the problems are, or talk to exactly the right person who can straighten it out.
This is not a function of incompetence, or of bad behavior as such -- it exists even when everyone is trying their best to work together. It exists even when citizens, who aren't necessarily bound by the tangle of regulations, are trying to help the government do its job.
In the linked article on Katrina, above, there is this line:
"We're working ourselves close to death," says Scott Darrah, a New Orleans civic activist. "But we can't move it past further than what we have today. The government needs to step up."I can sympathize with that position. One of the most promising examples of interagency cooperation in both Iraq and Afghanistan is the State-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams. As someone who cares about American success in these endeavors, I've been doing my best to help them help them find the people they need. On 13 August, I had an interview with Philip Reeker, of State, who talked about some recruiting problems for the PRTs. (It's an interesting subject for those interested in the question of how and whether State may need internal reforms, in order to address nation building problems like Iraq.)
From the beginning, I wanted to find out how the PRTs were reaching out to Americans, and to help them do so. It took weeks to get an answer to a pair of questions that any corporation could answer in minutes: How do you do your recruitment? Where are jobs posted?
I don't mention that to criticize State, which is standing up a PRT program highly praised by our military commanders, in spite of the serious difficulties facing that program. There was and is no hostility involved. Everyone wants the program to work; we're all trying our best to make it happen. I only mention it to explore the problems facing government. This is the nature of the beast. Government is too complex, with too many rules and regulations, too many agencies, and too many jobs to handle.
Even with a facilitator -- me, in this case -- who is outside the regulations and can simply "make things happen" if he can get the information, it still takes weeks. When the facilitator has authority within the bureaucracy, he can demand answers faster -- but he also then adds to the complexity of the problem. There is another layer of authority pushing and pulling; in addition to your direct boss, you now have a "dotted line" boss who can give orders.
That creates another set of competitions internally, between your "real" and your "dotted line" bosses. It may help one problem, but it creates new problems -- problems that echo throughout the system. Consider the question of the guy two agencies away who needs a ruling or an action from you, so a second agency can take an action, which will free his agency to move forward. Does he try to contact your real boss, or your dotted-line boss? Both? What does the competition between them do to the request? Does he instead just ask the guy the next level up -- the boss of both of them -- for an answer? What will going over their heads do to the request?
Americans are coming to understand that there are strict limits on what government can accomplish. We are scaling back our expectations and hopes for government in light of those problems. Some of the problems may be susceptible to computer and processing based solutions, so that real improvements can be made in efficiency. Others may be "competence" based, and better leadership might help. Many or most, however, are hard limits.
The government has overreached. It isn't capable of doing what it has set out to do. This just isn't the time for a new, expanded role for government: it's a time to scale it back, and pass off some of these problems to smaller, private entities that can actually maneuver well enough to solve those problems. These may be families; they may be churches; they may be corporations. They have the freedom to do what government simply cannot.
Ladybug
Miss Ladybug and the Draft:
Texas Blogger Miss Ladybug has a post up on a Marine lamenting the absence of a draft. She says she'd like to hear your opinions on the subject, if you please.
ChinaRant
Signs You've Been in China Too Long:
I happened across this list today while doing some other internet research; but I couldn't resist it. It will probably only be funny to people who have actually spent some time in China, but if you have, it's hilarious.
Several of the items I found funniest deal with the propensity in Chinese culture for people to absolutely refuse to give you a straight answer about anything -- especially if they have any sort of authority.
112. You accept without question the mechanic's analysis that the car is "Broken" and that it will cost you a lot of money to get it "Fixed".I think I've related my story about trying to get paid in China. "When will I be paid?" "Maybe today!" Three months later...
146. In a meeting you say everything will be 'wonderful' and give no details.
219. You think "white pills, blue pills, and pink powder" is an adequate answer to the question "What are you giving me, doctor?"
Ahem.
Australian Women:
One of the best friends I've ever had was a fellow from Freemantle, Australia. The wife and I met him in China when we were living there. He was an outright scoundrel, who had scammed the Australian welfare state into believing he was so crazy that he deserved a lifelong full pension, as he was incapable of working even eight hours a week; which pension was to be mailed to him in China, in US dollars, to enable him to pursue full-time studies in a foreign language.
I think he probably worked as hard getting and keeping that pension -- the not-totally-insensible Australian bureaucracy was forever trying to summon him for a review of the thing, since it was self-evidently suspicious -- as he would have done at a job of any kind. He had understood the key thing about psychology, though, which is that it is only masquerading as a science -- it really has no capacity either to prove or disprove any of its claims. As a result of that, and his knowledge of the arrangement of the bureaucracy, he was invincible.
That description can hardly recommend him to you, so let me add that he was a genuine philosopher on top of these less desirable qualities; a poet, and a man who could recite poetry at the drop of a hat; and as insightful and clever a man, and as good a conversationalist, as I've ever known. Between his capacity to provoke new thoughts and to explore them with you, and his ability to make even the dreariest winter evening (with no heat, again) into a delight, I wouldn't have held the pension against him if I had been paying it myself.
One of the things I remember him telling me was that he never dated Australian women -- that is, his own countrywomen. "They're not like other women," he said. "They're castrators."
I've known very few Australian women myself, so I can't inform the debate on the question as to whether or not he was being fair. I might suggest, however, that insofar as he was correct, it is not without some cause.
No doubt that's just how it will be received.Search on for 'sexiest feminist' THE men's magazine which sparked outrage when it offered a $10,000 boob job as a competition prize has responded to its critics by launching a search for Australia's sexiest feminist.
Zoo Weekly magazine angered health and women's groups when it urged men to "win" their girlfriend a boob job by sending in shots of her cleavage.
The lad's mag today revealed its new competition - a search "for the hottest girl in sensible shoes" - promising the winner a year's supply of deodorant and a sexy photo shoot.
"If you hate men, we want to see photos of you in sexy lingerie," the ad reads.
Magazine editor Paul Merrill said the new competition was the magazine's way of offering its critics an olive branch.
Movies. Everybody loves movies. We here at the hall have our on going film fest, we talk about them alot and well, when I saw this meme over at Villianous Company, I liked it so much that I'm taking it on, because, well, I like it so much. So there. And my response would get lost in the comments over there.
1. Name a movie you've seen more than 10 times.
Zulu. Conan the Barbarian. Starwars. Yojimbo. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
2. Name a movie you've seen multiple times in the theater.
The original Star Wars.
3. Name an actor who would make you more inclined to see a movie.
Johnny Depp, Christopher Walken, Peter O'Toole, Charles Laughton, Rutger Hauer. Funny, I can't think of an actress that I'd go out of my way to see.
4. Name an actor who would make you less likely to see a movie.
Sean Penn, Alec Baldwinn, John Travolta, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins (These are Cassandra's picks, but you know what? I wouldn't go see a movie with these people either.)
5. Name a movie that you can and do quote from.
The Duellists. Zulu. Conan the Barbarian. Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
6. Name a movie musical, to which you know all the lyrics to all of the songs.
Guys and Dolls. "I got the horse right here..."
7. Name a movie with which you've been known to sing along.
Guys and Dolls.
8. Name a movie you would recommend everyone see.
Samurai Fiction. Spaghetti Western Samurai film? I dunno. Go see it anyway. You won't regret it.
9. Name a movie you own.
Pirates of the Carribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Yo ho me hearties.
10. Name an actor that launched his/her entertainment career in another medium but who has surprised you with his/her acting chops.
Mark Wahlberg. Who knew he could act?
11. Have you ever seen a movie in a drive-in? If so, what?
Cheech and Chong's "Up in Smoke". Boy, that dates me.
12. Ever made out in a movie?
See last question. :) (Yeah, that was Cassandra's response too.)
13. Name a movie that you keep meaning to see but just haven’t yet gotten around to it..
Pork Chop Hill.
14. Ever walked out of a movie?
I wanted to walk out of the Prestige but my wife wouldn't let me.
15. Name a movie that made you cry in the theater.
Tout les Matins du Monde. Yes, I admit it. When Monsieur de Sainte Colombe plays his music for his dead wife.
16. Popcorn?
I'm not paying those prices.
17. How often do you go to the movies (as opposed to renting them or watching them at home)?
When there is something worth while seeing on the big screen.
18. What’s the last movie you saw in the theater?
Stardust.
19. What’s your favorite/preferred genre of movie?
Anything that tells a good tale.
20. What’s the first movie you remember seeing in the theater?
The Swiss Family Robinson.
21. What movie do you wish you had never seen?
The Prestige.
22. What is the weirdest movie you enjoyed?
Hmmm...in a way all movies are weird. The Big Lebowski, maybe. The life Aquatic (another of Cassandra's answers) is also weird but enjoyable. So is Lost in Translation.
23. What is the scariest movie you've seen?
The Ring. (the original Japanese one, which I saw not knowing what I was in for).
24. What is the funniest movie you've seen?
The Blues Brothers. Literally fell out of my seat laughing in the theater.
Cassandra's questions:
What was the last movie you saw at home?
Voices of a Distant Star. A very short, but poignant Anime about love across (literally) time and Space. And it has giant robots too.
If you had to name your top ten favorite movies of all time, what would they be? And why are they your favorites?
Geez, its film class again. Well, these are movies I'll stop and watch if they happen to be on TV, and I own them all too.
In no particular order:
Zulu. This just all comes together perfectly.
Conan the Barbarian. More fun than it has any right to be. Has the best line ever spoken in a movie.
The Seven Samurai. This movie is tool cool for words. The Magnificent Seven pales in comparison.
Henry V (Kenneth Branaugh's version). What's not to like about this? Shakespeare, Shakespeare, Shakespeare.
Ran. Kurosawa's take on King Lear. A visual feast, and the tragedy smacks you upside the head at the end.
The Duellists. Harvey Keitel, Keith Carradine, directed by Ridley Scott, based on a Joseph Conrad novella. Has to be seen.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Still holds up. Come back and you will laugh a second time!
Spirited Away. Hayao Miyazaki's masterpiece. If you ever get a chance to see it on the big screen do so.
Pirates of the Carribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. Pirates. Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush are just spot on. What we wish Pirates had been.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. It's not history, it's not the West, but its majestic all the same. Morricone's score makes the movie.
1. Name a movie you've seen more than 10 times.
Zulu. Conan the Barbarian. Starwars. Yojimbo. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
2. Name a movie you've seen multiple times in the theater.
The original Star Wars.
3. Name an actor who would make you more inclined to see a movie.
Johnny Depp, Christopher Walken, Peter O'Toole, Charles Laughton, Rutger Hauer. Funny, I can't think of an actress that I'd go out of my way to see.
4. Name an actor who would make you less likely to see a movie.
Sean Penn, Alec Baldwinn, John Travolta, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins (These are Cassandra's picks, but you know what? I wouldn't go see a movie with these people either.)
5. Name a movie that you can and do quote from.
The Duellists. Zulu. Conan the Barbarian. Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
6. Name a movie musical, to which you know all the lyrics to all of the songs.
Guys and Dolls. "I got the horse right here..."
7. Name a movie with which you've been known to sing along.
Guys and Dolls.
8. Name a movie you would recommend everyone see.
Samurai Fiction. Spaghetti Western Samurai film? I dunno. Go see it anyway. You won't regret it.
9. Name a movie you own.
Pirates of the Carribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Yo ho me hearties.
10. Name an actor that launched his/her entertainment career in another medium but who has surprised you with his/her acting chops.
Mark Wahlberg. Who knew he could act?
11. Have you ever seen a movie in a drive-in? If so, what?
Cheech and Chong's "Up in Smoke". Boy, that dates me.
12. Ever made out in a movie?
See last question. :) (Yeah, that was Cassandra's response too.)
13. Name a movie that you keep meaning to see but just haven’t yet gotten around to it..
Pork Chop Hill.
14. Ever walked out of a movie?
I wanted to walk out of the Prestige but my wife wouldn't let me.
15. Name a movie that made you cry in the theater.
Tout les Matins du Monde. Yes, I admit it. When Monsieur de Sainte Colombe plays his music for his dead wife.
16. Popcorn?
I'm not paying those prices.
17. How often do you go to the movies (as opposed to renting them or watching them at home)?
When there is something worth while seeing on the big screen.
18. What’s the last movie you saw in the theater?
Stardust.
19. What’s your favorite/preferred genre of movie?
Anything that tells a good tale.
20. What’s the first movie you remember seeing in the theater?
The Swiss Family Robinson.
21. What movie do you wish you had never seen?
The Prestige.
22. What is the weirdest movie you enjoyed?
Hmmm...in a way all movies are weird. The Big Lebowski, maybe. The life Aquatic (another of Cassandra's answers) is also weird but enjoyable. So is Lost in Translation.
23. What is the scariest movie you've seen?
The Ring. (the original Japanese one, which I saw not knowing what I was in for).
24. What is the funniest movie you've seen?
The Blues Brothers. Literally fell out of my seat laughing in the theater.
Cassandra's questions:
What was the last movie you saw at home?
Voices of a Distant Star. A very short, but poignant Anime about love across (literally) time and Space. And it has giant robots too.
If you had to name your top ten favorite movies of all time, what would they be? And why are they your favorites?
Geez, its film class again. Well, these are movies I'll stop and watch if they happen to be on TV, and I own them all too.
In no particular order:
Zulu. This just all comes together perfectly.
Conan the Barbarian. More fun than it has any right to be. Has the best line ever spoken in a movie.
The Seven Samurai. This movie is tool cool for words. The Magnificent Seven pales in comparison.
Henry V (Kenneth Branaugh's version). What's not to like about this? Shakespeare, Shakespeare, Shakespeare.
Ran. Kurosawa's take on King Lear. A visual feast, and the tragedy smacks you upside the head at the end.
The Duellists. Harvey Keitel, Keith Carradine, directed by Ridley Scott, based on a Joseph Conrad novella. Has to be seen.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Still holds up. Come back and you will laugh a second time!
Spirited Away. Hayao Miyazaki's masterpiece. If you ever get a chance to see it on the big screen do so.
Pirates of the Carribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. Pirates. Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush are just spot on. What we wish Pirates had been.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. It's not history, it's not the West, but its majestic all the same. Morricone's score makes the movie.
Fed Soc Debate
The Federalist Society Debate:
InstaPundit participated in a Federalist Society debate on gun rights and the Parker v. D.C. case. (I think his point on them denying cert to the case is a canny one.) It's interesting.
As usual, the debate centers on whether the "militia" part of the 2A overrides the "shall not be infringed" part. The main collectivist argues that the phrase "bear arms" had an exclusively military context in the 18th century, for example; and therefore that the right must pertain only to military uses.
It seems an odd point to me. It's obvious from the literature that (a) the Founders expected the states to maintain a militia, and also (b) that they are securing a "right of the people" rather than a "power of the states." There are two other uses of the phrase "right of the people" in the Constitution, in the 1A and 4A, protecting what are clearly individual rights. There is no reason to believe -- indeed, it would be an extraordinary claim -- that the Founders used the same phrase both right before (1A) and right after (4A) the 2A, but intended the middle use of the phrase to carry a wholly different meaning from the other two.
The government does not bother to regulate the militia, but that does not invalidate the right. That the government falls down on its part of the bargain should only strengthen the individual right, not wash it away. The 1A use of the term "right of the people" guarantees a right to petition the government for redress of grievances. If the government refused to redress any grievances, the right to make the petition would still exist.
More, the refusal of the government to accept petitions for redress would amplify rather than suppress your right to make such petitions. It would be just to make louder petitions, more frequent petitions, not fewer and softer ones.
If the government has fallen down on the business of regulating the militia, that has increased rather than suppressed the danger of modern society; and it has therefore amplified rather than minimized the right to bear arms. If Americans were trained as militia and regularly bore arms about themselves in that capacity, we would find little need to worry about terrorists or hostage-takers or even common criminals. Since that is not the case, our reason to carry arms in self defense is only increased.
The government's failure should never be read as a reason to limit the rights of citizens. When the government fails to execute its duties, the citizens' rights amplify. They are the ones who must make up the difference; and so they need more and greater rights, not fewer and less.
Time to Die
A Time to Die:
Not that it's anyone's fault. Nobody picks when to be born; we'll talk about picking when to die here in a bit, but not yet. First, we have to talk about the technology.
We've increased longetivity but not productivity -- a man is still done with work by seventy at the outside in most cases, but he might have another twenty years of eating to do. Any society has to feed a large mass of unproductive citizens as it is -- children. None, not even ours, can afford to feed most of its citizens for twenty years at the end of their lives as well.
What to do about it, though? Tell them to die?
Having seen the outer edge of it, I can tell you that the funds that are left at the end of life dry up fast. The government doesn't keep its promises. It doesn't keep them now to those due VA benefits; as the budget breaks later, it won't keep them at all. Then what? A family cares for its own, that's what.
The cost of individually caring for those who can't pay their way is high. What we need is to make old age livable enough that people can work and earn most of their days. Making life survivable is far simpler than leaving people productive, though -- the medicine required to keep the body from dying is simpler, though expensive.
That's for society. I want to talk to you men who are like me, who have the feeling about these things that I have. Until technology reaches that level, there is an ethical duty on us.
We've got to learn when to die, those of us who don't die naturally before we grow too old. Might be we should talk about that for a bit. It seems like a hard question. I don't hold with suicide as such, and many others don't as well. Yet no man would impoverish his children or his grandchildren just to keep himself alive a few more years.
So: How can a man die well? When is the right time? Until the technology catches up with us, we need to think about these things. Let us hear what you think.
What to say about this article?
For the last decade or so, economists have been telling us that the baby boomers, who represent over one-quarter of our total population, are about to become the beneficiaries of the greatest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history.... Depending on how they crunch the numbers and what models of economic growth they use, the experts estimate that somewhere between $41 and $136 trillion will pass from one generation to another in the next fifty years. Yes, that’s trillion, a number that almost defies comprehension.Seems like the Baby Boomers were the beneficiaries of the last great transfer of wealth, too -- the postwar boom that their fathers and mothers created, which allowed the young men and women of the late 1950s and the 1960s to begin adulthood among prosperity unheard of in human history. Having started their adult lives with unprecedented wealth built by their parents, the Baby Boom will now drain the coffers of their children and grandchildren to finance their retirement.
Not that it's anyone's fault. Nobody picks when to be born; we'll talk about picking when to die here in a bit, but not yet. First, we have to talk about the technology.
We've increased longetivity but not productivity -- a man is still done with work by seventy at the outside in most cases, but he might have another twenty years of eating to do. Any society has to feed a large mass of unproductive citizens as it is -- children. None, not even ours, can afford to feed most of its citizens for twenty years at the end of their lives as well.
What to do about it, though? Tell them to die?
“I love my parents, they’re good people, but you can’t help wondering: How long will they live? My mom’s only seventy-two and Dad’s seventy-six, which isn’t very old these days. If I have to take care of them, and I will, what happens to me and my family? What about my retirement? Who’s going to take care of that?”There's not even that, not really. When the Federal pensions come due at the same time as the Baby Boom demands on Social Security, the system will break.
The answer is: nobody. There’s Social Security, of course, but at best it promises a life at the bare subsistence level.
Having seen the outer edge of it, I can tell you that the funds that are left at the end of life dry up fast. The government doesn't keep its promises. It doesn't keep them now to those due VA benefits; as the budget breaks later, it won't keep them at all. Then what? A family cares for its own, that's what.
The cost of individually caring for those who can't pay their way is high. What we need is to make old age livable enough that people can work and earn most of their days. Making life survivable is far simpler than leaving people productive, though -- the medicine required to keep the body from dying is simpler, though expensive.
That's for society. I want to talk to you men who are like me, who have the feeling about these things that I have. Until technology reaches that level, there is an ethical duty on us.
We've got to learn when to die, those of us who don't die naturally before we grow too old. Might be we should talk about that for a bit. It seems like a hard question. I don't hold with suicide as such, and many others don't as well. Yet no man would impoverish his children or his grandchildren just to keep himself alive a few more years.
So: How can a man die well? When is the right time? Until the technology catches up with us, we need to think about these things. Let us hear what you think.
Wal Mart
Wal Mart Manager Imposes Himself:
...and still claim that they are the ones who should be regarded by society as lawbreakers.
An interesting story from VCDL's weekly report:
About a month ago, a relative of mine was in the Wal-Mart in Fairlawn. He was doing some shopping while open carrying his weapon. After being in the store for a little while, he was confronted by the assistant store manager, Jim Hancock, who told him that he was breaking the law by carrying his firearm, and asked him to remove it in the store and let him take it. When my relative said no, the manager told him that he could either go with him to the office and "straighten this out" or be prosecuted.It's nice to know that you can accost someone, demand to seize their property, demand that they stop their business and accompany you to speak to a policeman (isn't that an arrest?), and then -- when you find out that your quarry isn't breaking the law -- harrangue them, deny them the right to leave until you fill out your "report"...
He said, "OK," not knowing what he was going to be prosecuted for.
When they got to the back of the store, the assistant manager then called the Pulaski Sheriff's Department and put the deputy on speaker phone and asked what my relative could be charged with. When the deputy told him that there was no law being broken, he then hung up and started telling my relative that "things were going to change when the next president was elected...and people like my relative
were going to lose their rights to carry weapons."
When my relative wanted to leave, he was told that he had to write a report. After the report was written and signed, he then told him to leave the property. There were witnesses to this.
...and still claim that they are the ones who should be regarded by society as lawbreakers.
1776
1776 --
I'm hoping that all our authors and guests have enjoyed, or are about to enjoy, this delightful musical. (I am amazed that anyone could make a good play or movie, let alone a good musical, about a piece of legislation - but so it is.)
There's a lot to say after giving it a good look, or re-look. By coincidence, a few of us just had a longish talk on natural rights, as applied in the Declaration - I'll skip that, then, and mention just a few thoughts of my own:
Historical neatness - It seems to me that any war or regime that looks simple and decisive from a distance, looked much less so at the time. Adams' frustration at the Congress that "with one hand...can raise an Army, dispatch one of their own to lead it, and cheer the news from Bunker's hill, and with the other...wave the olive branch, begging the King for a happy and permanent reconciliation," rings true. I used to think of the Six-Day War -- from the Israeli standpoint -- as a simple affair, self-defense that everyone could agree upon; and there are many who seem to think that the U.S. government was giving unqualified support to Israel. If you read Michael Oren's excellent account, a very different picture emerges - of ceaseless Israeli political wrangling, right up to the eve of war (as per the Publisher's Weekly review quoted at Amazon, "not arrogance, but self-doubt, self-analysis and self-criticism, all carried to near-suicidal degrees in 1967..."); and the American role (something like the Soviet role on the other side) shifts often, and very often the Superpower is demanding, "hold back! - don't attack, or you'll lose our support!" Dare I say, to the not-precisely-young, decidedly-right-of-center types who are known to frequent this Hall, that even the Reagan Presidency didn't look so consistent or decisive at the time, even on foreign policy? (I remember an angry article, shortly after the 1987 INF Treaty, titled "Peace in Our Time" - which opened, "It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between Ronald Carter and Jimmy Reagan..." - I don't say we were all that angry, but you see where I'm going). Even with the Revolution, it was the same - disagreement and contention on the basic aim, even in a Congress already at war - giving us the interesting fact, celebrated on many of our insignia, that the U.S. Army is a year older than the U.S. itself. They managed to get through, but up close, it can't have looked pretty. This segues neatly into
Compromise - What strikes me about the characters in the movie, and the real personages on whom they are based, is the way they can reach political compromises with blocs of opponents whose views they not only oppose, but think ungodly. "Compromise" does not always mean, "believe that the other person is right, and has a point"; and "don't compromise on principle" (in a voting body like this) often means, "don't get what you're after" - so that you can always be painted as either unprincipled or too narrowly partisan. Maybe that's why Congress, as a body, doesn't get much love (admit it, you were expecting something else from that link). That is probably unfair - but it does give us some juicy quotes for angry moments, like one of the best opening lines from the movie: "I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a Disgrace; that two are called a Law Firm; and that three or more become a Congress!"
A great deal of compromise - hard, angry, principled, frustrated compromise - was necessary for the Declaration and the Constitution as well - it will certainly be needed if, as Grim has sometimes proposed, we ever call a convention to revitalize our national institutions. And one can sympathize with some of our friends overseas, who have a great deal of trouble managing it - it can be done, but it isn't easy or satisfying.
Artistic point - The Directors' Cut, which I own, contains a song called Cool, Considerate Men. There is a persistent rumor - I have never seen it substantiated - that this song was cut from the movie on the personal request of Richard Nixon. I find that a little hard to believe, especially in the face of a much more natural explanation: that the song was cut for excellent artistic reasons. It's too crude. In other scenes, the opponents of Independency are portrayed as sincere men, concerned with loyalty to the mother country and the horrific dangers of the armed conflict; in that song, they portray themselves as narrow-minded, cowardly, and selfish - and having one of General Washington's messages come in at the end of the song, while the opponents sing and rejoice, is extremely crude (the refrain, "to the right, ever to the right," is also an anachronism - as, I believe, the modern use of the terms "left" and "right" derives from Revolutionary France, over a decade later; and while many Americans enjoy identifying themselves as more like the Founders than their political opponents, that kind of swipe doesn't belong in this movie). The movie is much better without that song.
UPDATE: My Director's Cut includes a feature that lets me turn on a running commentary with the director and screenwriter. They both claim the story is true: that Nixon, after a private screening, asked the producer to cut the number, and he agreed, so that is confirmed after all. Both of them think the scene strengthens the drama; I couldn't agree less (the old version I was used to also cut some of Dickinson's other lines - making him less of a smart-aleck, and easier to believe). One of the two comments that the song shows the connection between the opponents of the Declaration and "modern conservatives" - thus showing little understanding of either.
Trivia - John Adams' first duet with Abigail contains some chemical anachronisms. He refers to "treating sodium nitrate with potassium chloride." But that particular way of naming chemical compounds didn't come into use until after Lavoisier published it in 1787 (I believe he also named nitrogen)...and the elements sodium, potassium, and chlorine received their names from Humphry Davy well after 1800.
All - thoughts?
Joel - What deadline shall we set for A Man for All Seasons?
I'm hoping that all our authors and guests have enjoyed, or are about to enjoy, this delightful musical. (I am amazed that anyone could make a good play or movie, let alone a good musical, about a piece of legislation - but so it is.)
There's a lot to say after giving it a good look, or re-look. By coincidence, a few of us just had a longish talk on natural rights, as applied in the Declaration - I'll skip that, then, and mention just a few thoughts of my own:
Historical neatness - It seems to me that any war or regime that looks simple and decisive from a distance, looked much less so at the time. Adams' frustration at the Congress that "with one hand...can raise an Army, dispatch one of their own to lead it, and cheer the news from Bunker's hill, and with the other...wave the olive branch, begging the King for a happy and permanent reconciliation," rings true. I used to think of the Six-Day War -- from the Israeli standpoint -- as a simple affair, self-defense that everyone could agree upon; and there are many who seem to think that the U.S. government was giving unqualified support to Israel. If you read Michael Oren's excellent account, a very different picture emerges - of ceaseless Israeli political wrangling, right up to the eve of war (as per the Publisher's Weekly review quoted at Amazon, "not arrogance, but self-doubt, self-analysis and self-criticism, all carried to near-suicidal degrees in 1967..."); and the American role (something like the Soviet role on the other side) shifts often, and very often the Superpower is demanding, "hold back! - don't attack, or you'll lose our support!" Dare I say, to the not-precisely-young, decidedly-right-of-center types who are known to frequent this Hall, that even the Reagan Presidency didn't look so consistent or decisive at the time, even on foreign policy? (I remember an angry article, shortly after the 1987 INF Treaty, titled "Peace in Our Time" - which opened, "It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between Ronald Carter and Jimmy Reagan..." - I don't say we were all that angry, but you see where I'm going). Even with the Revolution, it was the same - disagreement and contention on the basic aim, even in a Congress already at war - giving us the interesting fact, celebrated on many of our insignia, that the U.S. Army is a year older than the U.S. itself. They managed to get through, but up close, it can't have looked pretty. This segues neatly into
Compromise - What strikes me about the characters in the movie, and the real personages on whom they are based, is the way they can reach political compromises with blocs of opponents whose views they not only oppose, but think ungodly. "Compromise" does not always mean, "believe that the other person is right, and has a point"; and "don't compromise on principle" (in a voting body like this) often means, "don't get what you're after" - so that you can always be painted as either unprincipled or too narrowly partisan. Maybe that's why Congress, as a body, doesn't get much love (admit it, you were expecting something else from that link). That is probably unfair - but it does give us some juicy quotes for angry moments, like one of the best opening lines from the movie: "I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a Disgrace; that two are called a Law Firm; and that three or more become a Congress!"
A great deal of compromise - hard, angry, principled, frustrated compromise - was necessary for the Declaration and the Constitution as well - it will certainly be needed if, as Grim has sometimes proposed, we ever call a convention to revitalize our national institutions. And one can sympathize with some of our friends overseas, who have a great deal of trouble managing it - it can be done, but it isn't easy or satisfying.
Artistic point - The Directors' Cut, which I own, contains a song called Cool, Considerate Men. There is a persistent rumor - I have never seen it substantiated - that this song was cut from the movie on the personal request of Richard Nixon. I find that a little hard to believe, especially in the face of a much more natural explanation: that the song was cut for excellent artistic reasons. It's too crude. In other scenes, the opponents of Independency are portrayed as sincere men, concerned with loyalty to the mother country and the horrific dangers of the armed conflict; in that song, they portray themselves as narrow-minded, cowardly, and selfish - and having one of General Washington's messages come in at the end of the song, while the opponents sing and rejoice, is extremely crude (the refrain, "to the right, ever to the right," is also an anachronism - as, I believe, the modern use of the terms "left" and "right" derives from Revolutionary France, over a decade later; and while many Americans enjoy identifying themselves as more like the Founders than their political opponents, that kind of swipe doesn't belong in this movie). The movie is much better without that song.
UPDATE: My Director's Cut includes a feature that lets me turn on a running commentary with the director and screenwriter. They both claim the story is true: that Nixon, after a private screening, asked the producer to cut the number, and he agreed, so that is confirmed after all. Both of them think the scene strengthens the drama; I couldn't agree less (the old version I was used to also cut some of Dickinson's other lines - making him less of a smart-aleck, and easier to believe). One of the two comments that the song shows the connection between the opponents of the Declaration and "modern conservatives" - thus showing little understanding of either.
Trivia - John Adams' first duet with Abigail contains some chemical anachronisms. He refers to "treating sodium nitrate with potassium chloride." But that particular way of naming chemical compounds didn't come into use until after Lavoisier published it in 1787 (I believe he also named nitrogen)...and the elements sodium, potassium, and chlorine received their names from Humphry Davy well after 1800.
All - thoughts?
Joel - What deadline shall we set for A Man for All Seasons?
Guns 1
The Guns of Grim's Hall, Part One:
In which we explore the guns of Grim himself. I've been meaning to photograph these things for insurance purposes anyway -- and putting the picture up here on the blog means that, even if some thief swiped my computer hard drive and any CD backups, the photo will still exist. Besides, it strikes me as a topic that the readers will enjoy.
You can click on the photo for an upsized version. I've blogged about some of these in the past, and so I'll link back to those entries.
First, the longarms. On the top left, we have a Henry Golden Boy in .22 LR. The rifle to the right is a Winchester 94 in .30-30. The lowermost of the longarms is a Stoeger Coachgun, double-barrel 12ga.
In between is a Tennessee rifle that belonged to my great-great-great grandfather. It's got an old percussion cap lock, sadly broken, and a homemade stock. It apparently dates to the Antebellum period, when Tennessee and Kain-tuck-ee were the wild frontier.
The short guns, from the top: a Ruger New Model Vaquero 4 3/4" in .45 Long Colt. Below that is a Ruger Single-Six in .22 LR. Below that is my old Smith & Wesson "Mountain Gun" in .44 Remington Magnum. Below that is my wife's gun, a bit of a black sheep as you can see: a Glock Model 20 in 10mm Automatic.
Off to the side, under the old Tennessee Rifle, is a Bond Arms Snake Slayer in .45 LC / .410ga. This thing is the most fun piece I have to take to the range. I've never seen anything like it for getting everyone's eyes turned in your direction. First, it's because they're amused to see a big guy's hand wrapped around a tiny little gun. Then, "BAAAAROOOOOM!" and a tongue of flame and smoke shoots out of it. It fires the same load as the Ruger New Vaquero, but in the Vaquero it feels like a gentle pop. Out of the derringer, it's a beast. It can be quite accurate at short range, however, with adequate practice.
The gun belt is an Ernie Hill Speedleather make, double thick saddle leather. I don't know who made the holster -- I bought it at the Dulles gun show a few years ago, and I wish I'd kept the guy's card, because it's a fine piece. It's a crossdraw, for the Ruger New Vaquero, which is the best rig for carrying while mounted.
There is also a, er, portion of my knife collection in the photo. The two to which I'd like to call your attention are at the top right, the second and third down. These are Stek knives, made by a knifemaker family out of Montana. I've never encountered the equal of the top knife, a damascus Bowie made from the remnants of an Iraqi IED. The shards were brought back by the military contractor they tried to kill, who passed them to the smiths of the Stek family. They forged them into -- as Lord Dunsany put it -- a sword of thunderbolt iron.
The father-son team doesn't have the reputation of the big-dollar knifemakers, though I've never seen anyone's work to match their best. They normally sell their works directly to the public through Ebay -- you can see their current items here. If, reading this page, you have considered adding a fighting knife to your property and learning to use it, you could do worse than to watch their page for something that suits your arm.
Don't be carried
Don't Make The Donovan Carry You:
Kim:
Guns are the topic of the report, but given that Grim's Hall is also an advocate of bladesmanship, favorite knives and/or swords are also welcome.
This might include Joe's new "walking stick," once he's made up his mind about it. How'd that go, Joe?
Both The Donovan and Kim du Toit had the same reaction to this news story:
The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.Their reaction? "Nine for ten? Who's slacking off?"
U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world’s 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.
About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.
“There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people,” it said.
Kim:
Come on, people: everyone knows that you need at least a handgun, a shotgun and a rifle to be a functioning member of society. So the correct ratio should be 300 guns per hundred population.John Donovan:
Given the readership of this blog, it might well - though if you feel like you know me... then I'm skewing the hell out of the number - because I'm carrying 166 slackers living somewhere... and I know two other collectors, in town, who between the three of us are carrying 500 of you guys.I doubt most of us are in anything like the same league as these two fellows, but would like to think we could muster a respectable showing. I'd like to invite Grim's Hall contributors to submit photographs of their collection, ala John's, for posting here. It would be a good chance to talk about our favorites, and enjoy a common interest.
Guns are the topic of the report, but given that Grim's Hall is also an advocate of bladesmanship, favorite knives and/or swords are also welcome.
This might include Joe's new "walking stick," once he's made up his mind about it. How'd that go, Joe?
Pretty Boys.
via Instapundit, this look at the weirdness that is the Taliban. (And I suppose, Afghanistan in general).
Fromt that, I guess Kipling was wrong.
That last stanza should read:
via Instapundit, this look at the weirdness that is the Taliban. (And I suppose, Afghanistan in general).
Fromt that, I guess Kipling was wrong.
That last stanza should read:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the Taliban come out to bugger what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
RIP Richard Jewell
RIP Deputy Jewell:
I was around Atlanta a lot in 1996, so I got to enjoy the full flavor of the Olympics. The relentless construction that made the highways impassable for a year, the constant flow of Olympic Committee people who came and were wined and dined in the city, the unsubstantiated claims that IOC members were heavily bribed by the city, the huge police and security presence, and so forth. I did get to attend an exhibition field hockey match between India and Pakistan (in those heady 1990s days, we were all rooting for Pakistan). If you've never been, field hockey is much like ice hockey, but much less exciting.
One of the things I remember was the Olympic Park bombing, and the tragedy of Richard Jewell. The guy spotted a package that shouldn't be where it was, evacuated the area, and thereby saved the lives of those folks who were nearby.
He then became a suspect in the bombing, and was eaten alive by the media. The FBI cleared him of involvement, but not before his reputation had been slandered up, down and sideways. We heard how he had tried to become a cop, and been turned down. We heard that he had maybe been accused of showing fake police IDs around. We heard speculation that he was a failed, crazy freak who wanted to be a cop to abuse power and swagger around, and might be taking it out on the little people that his life was a failure.
Turned out, of course, he was a guy who had tried to be a cop, and got turned down -- so he became a security guard, did his job, and saved some lives. He was an example of someone who felt a duty and did it, however he could, in spite of the handicaps that life threw in his way. That may not be heroism, but it is honest and manful.
I hadn't heard of the guy since 1996, but I was surprised to hear that he had died, being still somewhat young. I am delighted to hear that he spent his last years as a deputy sheriff. Neither the handicaps in his way nor his false handling by the media finally stopped him from being what he had always wanted to be.
Apparently the governor held a ceremony for him in 2006, on the tenth anniversary of the bombing. He had some kind words to say for the man, but Jewell was not one to self-aggrandize. "I never sought to be a hero," he said. "I have always viewed myself as just one of the many trained professionals who simply did his or her job that tragic night. I wish I could have done more."
Many will live and die without doing as much.
Janne
Janne's Blog:
Occasional commenter "Janne" writes to say that she has started a blog. It's still in its new stages.
MOVIE TIME.
MOVIE TIME.
In light of our discussions concerning rights, the role of the citizen, duties to the state, and moral obligations I would like to suggest that we watch A Man for All Seasons. I believe it would be particularly relevant. I believe this is one of the best movies (and plays) you can watch that that deals with the aforementioned concepts, as well as moral courage.
In light of our discussions concerning rights, the role of the citizen, duties to the state, and moral obligations I would like to suggest that we watch A Man for All Seasons. I believe it would be particularly relevant. I believe this is one of the best movies (and plays) you can watch that that deals with the aforementioned concepts, as well as moral courage.
VS N 2
V. S. Naipaul, Again:
I've blogged about V. S. Naipaul once before. I have a tremendous admiration for the author. He came to my county at a very troubled time, when there was an uproar with all the echoes of race and the South. So did many people, including Oprah; the last great Civil Rights march of Hosea Williams was a big story at the time.
Of them all, only Naipaul wrote with clear eyes. His story had no villains; not Hosea, who in spite of his grandiosity and the swagger with which he would charge others with racism, was a decent man who worked hard to help the poor and the downtrodden. Not the people of Forsyth County, whom he portrayed largely kindly. And certainly not Sheriff Walraven, a friend of my family's, whom he portrayed exactly as I remember the man. I quoted from that portrayal at length in the earlier piece.
It's hard to see with clear eyes, and harder still to write in that way. This week, there is an interview in the London Times with the author. I don't think I'll quote from it. I'll just invite you, if you aren't familiar with the man, to meet him.
rights
Grim and Joel:
You two always give me something to think about and this latest debate is no different. I know my only real participation has been sniping on points I feel are relevent, mostly correcting Germanic lore, but one man's trash is another man's treasure.
I don't feel that I disagree with either of you in a practical matter, namely that we have our Rights as US Citizens and these Rights are good things.
Although I agree with The Jacksonian Party that your Rights come last, after your Responsibilities as a Citizen.
It seems to me that your core argument is futile for me to engage in when you bring up ultimate origin of rights. If we shared a common belief in Godly beings or a singular God, then maybe it would be a constructive learning experience. But we don't, so right out of the gate different cultural paradigms prohibit common ground.
So I must fall back on what I know to be fact:
1) Moral rights are put into place by humans with bloodshed and strife, &
2) In order to see these rights flourish, in America, you must perform your obligations as a Citizen.
Everything else I see as speculative belief.
Finally: I did want to thank you both for your past (and hopefully future) words-- it has been a big help to me.
You two always give me something to think about and this latest debate is no different. I know my only real participation has been sniping on points I feel are relevent, mostly correcting Germanic lore, but one man's trash is another man's treasure.
I don't feel that I disagree with either of you in a practical matter, namely that we have our Rights as US Citizens and these Rights are good things.
Although I agree with The Jacksonian Party that your Rights come last, after your Responsibilities as a Citizen.
It seems to me that your core argument is futile for me to engage in when you bring up ultimate origin of rights. If we shared a common belief in Godly beings or a singular God, then maybe it would be a constructive learning experience. But we don't, so right out of the gate different cultural paradigms prohibit common ground.
So I must fall back on what I know to be fact:
1) Moral rights are put into place by humans with bloodshed and strife, &
2) In order to see these rights flourish, in America, you must perform your obligations as a Citizen.
Everything else I see as speculative belief.
Finally: I did want to thank you both for your past (and hopefully future) words-- it has been a big help to me.
Beowulf Founders etc.
Beowulf & the Founders, Cont.:
There is a class of people who are educated at society's expense, enjoy the prosperity the society allows, and then -- instead of assuming positions that further that prosperity or defend the society -- attempt to undermine the foundations of our Republic. They are a problem for society, in the way that freeloaders are always a problem for any social or economic model. They still enjoy full rights, because the provision of rights is the basic design of our society. It is what society is for.
Unlike those who work for the benefit of our society, however, they are not paying their way. There are goods that some people are earning -- rights, prosperity -- and they are entitled by membership in the society to a share. Instead of trying to contribute, however, they try to tear down the project.
Of course they still have rights; America couldn't be America without provisioning them with rights. Citizens also have duties. While we might not punish those who do not perform those duties, we can recognize socially that performing your duty is praiseworthy, and not performing it is not. I suspect Joel and I agree about this point.
I conceed Joel's point re: natural-born Presidents. I had misremembered the terms, but his formula seems correct. I also think he has an excellent point in his dispute about the term "state of nature," as the best evidence suggests that the real "state of nature" for men is a tribe, not a lone survivor. The evidence regarding the state of small tribes in early America is actually not that different from Hobbes' viewpoint about what the life of a solitary man in 'a state of nature' would be, however.
Joel and I do not really disagree at this point re: northern Kingship. Yes, potential kings were from a certain class. So, of course, were potential Presidents at the time of the Founding.
Finally, Joel notes that the Founders "did not establish a form of government that based the origin of the rights of citizens on their utility to the state." On this we agree entirely. You do not have to be useful to have rights, as above. However, if any rights are to be made real in the world, someone has to do the work.
Now, to the remaining points of disagreement:
First and most important, Joel and Eric both point to the overwhelming preponderance of Roman symbols among the Founder's writings. I spoke to this briefly in the comments, by pointing to the fact that Alfred the Great himself had done the same thing, and had in fact translated Boethius in order to bring the Latin learning to his people. That is not a sufficient reply, however.
The fact that the symbols are mostly Roman, and some Greek ("Christian Sparta") is due to the education of the day, which was heavy on Latin. The class of educated men almost had to speak in Roman symbols, no matter what position they were advocating. Shakespeare, in plays designed to speak well of the Queen of the Tudors, also regularly drew on Rome. Everyone in that age did, for any purpose.
Symbols are important for telling you where people's imagination is, but you have to look to the real things to see their genetic heritage. We sell horses to foxhunters regularly around here, and they want English or Irish names. I can take a horse and name him O'Neill, and sell him for a good price to a foxhunter with Irish dreams. It is still a very non-Irish horse, however, like the one I ride in the icon by my comments, an American Paint named "Tobais." If you go by his name, he is Gaelic; but if you look at his genes, he is nothing of the kind.
The genetic heritage of our Republic is the one Jefferson described -- he was almost alone among the Founders in remarking on it because he was almost the only one well enough read to understand it. After the burning of the Library of Congress in 1814, Jefferson's personal library was the largest in America. It was, and remains, a national treasure.
That genetic heritage of our nation is far more closely related to the models of England itself than of Rome, and not just any moment in English history. Jefferson wrote, "It has ever appeared to me, that the difference between the whig and the tory of England is, that the whig deduces his rights from the Anglo-Saxon source, and the tory from the Norman." The relation of those parties to the American question is well known here.
We inherited of a system of trial by jury, which was developed from the Vikings. The accused is represented by a lawyer, as he was by a "law-sayer" among the Vikings. We have a thing we call a "Senate," but it is little like the Roman Senate. For one thing, it was not popularly elected at the Founding -- many of the Founders detested the concept. It is far more like the House of Lords, except that the Founders replaced the concept of nobility with the concept of being appointed by the leadership of the states. The Congress is bicameral, like Parliament, having a House of Commons of the form that the common (that is, Saxon) people of England forced upon the Normans. The Romans were content to divide themselves into The Senate and The People, but the English were not -- and we are not. Though Congress' procedures are its own, the idea of a strict division of executive and legislative authority does not arise from Roman sources: Senators, for example, had the right of capital punishment. The division of powers is an English import.
Most importantly, the key to the American founding is the idea of rights, as we have been discussing. That is an English idea, the thing that Jefferson rightly pointed to in the Saxons in the Norman era, the thing that the Founders noted in the Declaration of Arbroath among the Scots, and that I have attempted to trace to older sources.
The basic machinery of society is likewise inherited. We have sheriffs and summons to appear before courts; our older cities have aldermen. Our states are divided into counties, with broad local autonomy. Eric says that the Romans were the idea behind the militia, but the militia was also a distinctly English concept, with every freeman required by law to own and practice with appointed weapons. This was precisely the form that the Founders adopted.
Whatever names they used for things, the great bulk of our society was inherited. It was not inherited unchanged, but the weight of the ancient traditions, and the ancient ideas of what rights are and what they entail, greatly outweigh the symbols laid on the top of the thing.
Some other, lesser points of disagreement:
Joel posits that the Creator intended human rights, and attempts to prove it with this analogy: "While you will not find any element called 'human rights' in the genetic makeup of human beings that does not mean that human rights do not exist. You will not find elements called love or sense of humor in the genetic makeup of human beings either but I think we will all agree that love and humor exist."
In fact, there do seem to be strong biological impulses at work in both love and humor. Without going into the weeds on the neuroscience, both questions are hotly researched at universities worldwide. Linking the genetics to the higher biology has yet to be done, but there is really no reason to doubt that basic human biology does include mechanisms for both of these things. Indeed, there is this strong reason to support the hypothesis: love and humor are universal among humans.
A theory of human rights, however, is rare. There is nothing in most of the great civilizations of the world that suggests it was a driving force. Certainly the imperial Chinese, or Persians, had nothing like it. That suggests that it is not biological, but cultural -- something that arises not from nature, in other words, but from men.
Especially when we consider the particular rights we feel are important -- freedom of conscience, of speech, the right to bear arms -- we see a very specific cultural heritage. This is not something the Creator gave to all men. If the Creator had a hand in it, and I certainly do not discount the possibility, he gave it to us.
It may become universal among men, but if it does, it will be because of what we do with it. It must be taught, and made real. If it is in fact God's will that all men should know such rights, then he has given America a very special mandate indeed. Regardless, however, this concept is our own -- we are the ones who bear it to the world. We are the ones who care about it. We are the ones who must defend it.
Joel's response makes me think that we may be approaching a resolution; several of the disputes he raises are actually things I agree with entirely, which suggests that we may not be communicating perfectly. In addition to discussing our remaining points of disagreement, I'd like to clarify areas where I think we really agree.
Joel begins by asserting that he believes "an individual's rights exist aside and apart from the moral responsibilities associated with those rights," including the defense of the society that makes those rights practically possible. I agree with this position. Since Eric also expressed a dispute on these grounds, I'll pull up that section of the comments. The italicized texts is from Eric's comment:
"The rights that the critic enjoys do not belong to him. They are earned by those who defend the society that allows them to exist."This is why I used the term "freeloader" rather than "traitor" or something similar. The Founders had a clear idea of what they wanted to consider treason. I don't propose to broaden the definition.
This simply isn't so. The rights may be defended or guaranteed by some subset of the citizery, but rights are expressable by all the citizens.
Let me try to express that point differently, since the distinction I made between "belongs" and "earned by" may be confusing. I passed over it quickly, and it may need to be more fully articulated.
I don't mean to suggest that the critic has no rights. I do mean to suggest that the rights aren't earned by him. Because they exist practically only because of the work of others, the hypothetical critic is living off the work of others.
That doesn't mean that society doesn't guarantee his rights just the same. It only means he doesn't really contribute to the upkeep of that society, and should be seen as a freeloader.
An imperfect analogy would be to a seventeen year old who will neither work nor go to school. Society nevertheless protects his right to be fed and clothed by his parents. He has an actual right to those things, and can appeal to the law if they are denied to him. The larger society grants him those rights, and the smaller society of his family provides him with the practical expression of those rights.
However, he is doing nothing to earn them. The clothes and the food don't really belong to him -- he just has a right to them.
There is a class of people who are educated at society's expense, enjoy the prosperity the society allows, and then -- instead of assuming positions that further that prosperity or defend the society -- attempt to undermine the foundations of our Republic. They are a problem for society, in the way that freeloaders are always a problem for any social or economic model. They still enjoy full rights, because the provision of rights is the basic design of our society. It is what society is for.
Unlike those who work for the benefit of our society, however, they are not paying their way. There are goods that some people are earning -- rights, prosperity -- and they are entitled by membership in the society to a share. Instead of trying to contribute, however, they try to tear down the project.
Of course they still have rights; America couldn't be America without provisioning them with rights. Citizens also have duties. While we might not punish those who do not perform those duties, we can recognize socially that performing your duty is praiseworthy, and not performing it is not. I suspect Joel and I agree about this point.
I conceed Joel's point re: natural-born Presidents. I had misremembered the terms, but his formula seems correct. I also think he has an excellent point in his dispute about the term "state of nature," as the best evidence suggests that the real "state of nature" for men is a tribe, not a lone survivor. The evidence regarding the state of small tribes in early America is actually not that different from Hobbes' viewpoint about what the life of a solitary man in 'a state of nature' would be, however.
Joel and I do not really disagree at this point re: northern Kingship. Yes, potential kings were from a certain class. So, of course, were potential Presidents at the time of the Founding.
Finally, Joel notes that the Founders "did not establish a form of government that based the origin of the rights of citizens on their utility to the state." On this we agree entirely. You do not have to be useful to have rights, as above. However, if any rights are to be made real in the world, someone has to do the work.
Now, to the remaining points of disagreement:
First and most important, Joel and Eric both point to the overwhelming preponderance of Roman symbols among the Founder's writings. I spoke to this briefly in the comments, by pointing to the fact that Alfred the Great himself had done the same thing, and had in fact translated Boethius in order to bring the Latin learning to his people. That is not a sufficient reply, however.
The fact that the symbols are mostly Roman, and some Greek ("Christian Sparta") is due to the education of the day, which was heavy on Latin. The class of educated men almost had to speak in Roman symbols, no matter what position they were advocating. Shakespeare, in plays designed to speak well of the Queen of the Tudors, also regularly drew on Rome. Everyone in that age did, for any purpose.
Symbols are important for telling you where people's imagination is, but you have to look to the real things to see their genetic heritage. We sell horses to foxhunters regularly around here, and they want English or Irish names. I can take a horse and name him O'Neill, and sell him for a good price to a foxhunter with Irish dreams. It is still a very non-Irish horse, however, like the one I ride in the icon by my comments, an American Paint named "Tobais." If you go by his name, he is Gaelic; but if you look at his genes, he is nothing of the kind.
The genetic heritage of our Republic is the one Jefferson described -- he was almost alone among the Founders in remarking on it because he was almost the only one well enough read to understand it. After the burning of the Library of Congress in 1814, Jefferson's personal library was the largest in America. It was, and remains, a national treasure.
That genetic heritage of our nation is far more closely related to the models of England itself than of Rome, and not just any moment in English history. Jefferson wrote, "It has ever appeared to me, that the difference between the whig and the tory of England is, that the whig deduces his rights from the Anglo-Saxon source, and the tory from the Norman." The relation of those parties to the American question is well known here.
We inherited of a system of trial by jury, which was developed from the Vikings. The accused is represented by a lawyer, as he was by a "law-sayer" among the Vikings. We have a thing we call a "Senate," but it is little like the Roman Senate. For one thing, it was not popularly elected at the Founding -- many of the Founders detested the concept. It is far more like the House of Lords, except that the Founders replaced the concept of nobility with the concept of being appointed by the leadership of the states. The Congress is bicameral, like Parliament, having a House of Commons of the form that the common (that is, Saxon) people of England forced upon the Normans. The Romans were content to divide themselves into The Senate and The People, but the English were not -- and we are not. Though Congress' procedures are its own, the idea of a strict division of executive and legislative authority does not arise from Roman sources: Senators, for example, had the right of capital punishment. The division of powers is an English import.
Most importantly, the key to the American founding is the idea of rights, as we have been discussing. That is an English idea, the thing that Jefferson rightly pointed to in the Saxons in the Norman era, the thing that the Founders noted in the Declaration of Arbroath among the Scots, and that I have attempted to trace to older sources.
The basic machinery of society is likewise inherited. We have sheriffs and summons to appear before courts; our older cities have aldermen. Our states are divided into counties, with broad local autonomy. Eric says that the Romans were the idea behind the militia, but the militia was also a distinctly English concept, with every freeman required by law to own and practice with appointed weapons. This was precisely the form that the Founders adopted.
Whatever names they used for things, the great bulk of our society was inherited. It was not inherited unchanged, but the weight of the ancient traditions, and the ancient ideas of what rights are and what they entail, greatly outweigh the symbols laid on the top of the thing.
Some other, lesser points of disagreement:
Joel posits that the Creator intended human rights, and attempts to prove it with this analogy: "While you will not find any element called 'human rights' in the genetic makeup of human beings that does not mean that human rights do not exist. You will not find elements called love or sense of humor in the genetic makeup of human beings either but I think we will all agree that love and humor exist."
In fact, there do seem to be strong biological impulses at work in both love and humor. Without going into the weeds on the neuroscience, both questions are hotly researched at universities worldwide. Linking the genetics to the higher biology has yet to be done, but there is really no reason to doubt that basic human biology does include mechanisms for both of these things. Indeed, there is this strong reason to support the hypothesis: love and humor are universal among humans.
A theory of human rights, however, is rare. There is nothing in most of the great civilizations of the world that suggests it was a driving force. Certainly the imperial Chinese, or Persians, had nothing like it. That suggests that it is not biological, but cultural -- something that arises not from nature, in other words, but from men.
Especially when we consider the particular rights we feel are important -- freedom of conscience, of speech, the right to bear arms -- we see a very specific cultural heritage. This is not something the Creator gave to all men. If the Creator had a hand in it, and I certainly do not discount the possibility, he gave it to us.
It may become universal among men, but if it does, it will be because of what we do with it. It must be taught, and made real. If it is in fact God's will that all men should know such rights, then he has given America a very special mandate indeed. Regardless, however, this concept is our own -- we are the ones who bear it to the world. We are the ones who care about it. We are the ones who must defend it.
BEOWULF VS. THE FOUNDERS CONT.
BEOWULF VS. THE FOUNDERS CONT.
I have enjoyed our spirited debate immensely. Like Grim, there are few things I like more.
Before we go any further with this discussion let me make it clear that what I am addressing is the origin of human rights. I am not discussing the moral responsibilities that accompany rights. That is a separate subject. Suffice it to say on that topic that I believe an individual’s rights exist aside and apart from the moral responsibilities associated with those rights. For instance, I believe that all individuals that enjoy the freedoms and rights protected by our nation have a responsibility to support and defend the nation that offers that protection. Nevertheless, I will fight to the death to protect the right of a communist, radical left college professor to exercise his right to free speech even when that speech is critical of the country and our system of government. I will do so even if the same college professor refuses to participate in, or is even critical of, the defense of the nation. I will do so because I recognize his right to freely state his opinion even if he won’t participate in the defense of that freedom himself. I may look down on him as a man or a citizen. Nevertheless, regardless of my disdain he still has the right of free speech.
The origin of our rights begins at creation. They are not granted to us by the state nor are they dependant on our utility to the state as soldiers or workers. We posses them separate and apart from any moral responsibilities that we may incur due to the protection of those rights from third parties or governments.
Furthermore, in response to a comment from a particular poster let me state that this discussion is squarely in the philosophical field of inquiry. While you will not find any element called “human rights” in the genetic make up of human beings that does not mean that human rights do not exist. You will not find elements called love or sense of humor in the genetic make up of human beings either but I think we will all agree that love and humor exist. Let’s not lose sight of the nature of this discussion.
At this point I need to correct some mistakes in Grim’s post below. Regarding ancestry Grim posted the below quote:
“More importantly, they require natural born citizenship for any candidate for the Presidency. This shows that, for the highest office in the land, they considered it important not merely that you be a citizen, but that you come from a family that had shown a generational commitment to the nation.”
That last sentence is incorrect. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires only that a candidate for the Presidency be a natural born citizen. It does not require that the parents were born in this country or even that they were citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth. Since our country continues to recognize birth right citizenship it is only necessary to be born in this country to be a natural citizen. Consequently, the Founding Fathers were most certainly not introducing a concept of generational commitment to the country as a prerequisite for holding the presidency. They could have if they had wanted to but they did not. That is because they were doing everything they could to take ancestry out of the equation.
I concede that Kingship in northern barbaric societies was not inherited. Nevertheless, candidates for the position never came from the peasant class. They always came from the warrior class, that is to say the upper class. Membership in that class was hereditary.
While I recognize that Thomas Jefferson placed great significance on the contribution of the Anglo-Saxons to republican and democratic institutions among the English speaking people I am also aware that he was practically alone in this opinion. When the majority of Founding Fathers looked to antiquity for guidance concerning republican and democratic institutions it was not to Anglo-Saxon England (certainly not the Vikings) but rather Republican Rome and ancient Greece. I can remember no references to northern European barbarian tribes in the Federalist Papers. I am unaware of any Viking or Celtic pseudonyms adopted by the founders when arguing for independence or ratification of the Constitution, although Latin and Roman names were legion (pun intended). Even Samuel Adams who you quoted below thought that his generation was establishing a “Christian Sparta.”
While I recognize that the Saxons had an influence on the British Parliamentary system that ultimately came into existence at the time North America was being settled, their influence on our constitutional system is much more remote. In fact, the Saxon contribution is only significant insofar as it was one of many influences on the British system that in turn was an influence on our Constitution.
While I will concede that there may be similarities between certain concepts that ancient European Barbarian Tribes and our Founding Fathers believed in it is a different (and incorrect) thing altogether to state that the Founding Fathers were directly influenced by the practices and beliefs of those northern European Barbarians. Aside from Thomas Jefferson’s unique interest in the Saxons, there is no historical evidence that the practices and beliefs of the Saxons had any influence on the Founders. Furthermore, it bears noting that Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting of the Constitution.
Finally, The Founding Fathers did not establish a form of government that based the origin of the rights of citizens on their utility to the state. They created a nation that recognized human rights as existing prior to the state and emanating from a higher authority.
I have enjoyed our spirited debate immensely. Like Grim, there are few things I like more.
Before we go any further with this discussion let me make it clear that what I am addressing is the origin of human rights. I am not discussing the moral responsibilities that accompany rights. That is a separate subject. Suffice it to say on that topic that I believe an individual’s rights exist aside and apart from the moral responsibilities associated with those rights. For instance, I believe that all individuals that enjoy the freedoms and rights protected by our nation have a responsibility to support and defend the nation that offers that protection. Nevertheless, I will fight to the death to protect the right of a communist, radical left college professor to exercise his right to free speech even when that speech is critical of the country and our system of government. I will do so even if the same college professor refuses to participate in, or is even critical of, the defense of the nation. I will do so because I recognize his right to freely state his opinion even if he won’t participate in the defense of that freedom himself. I may look down on him as a man or a citizen. Nevertheless, regardless of my disdain he still has the right of free speech.
The origin of our rights begins at creation. They are not granted to us by the state nor are they dependant on our utility to the state as soldiers or workers. We posses them separate and apart from any moral responsibilities that we may incur due to the protection of those rights from third parties or governments.
Furthermore, in response to a comment from a particular poster let me state that this discussion is squarely in the philosophical field of inquiry. While you will not find any element called “human rights” in the genetic make up of human beings that does not mean that human rights do not exist. You will not find elements called love or sense of humor in the genetic make up of human beings either but I think we will all agree that love and humor exist. Let’s not lose sight of the nature of this discussion.
At this point I need to correct some mistakes in Grim’s post below. Regarding ancestry Grim posted the below quote:
“More importantly, they require natural born citizenship for any candidate for the Presidency. This shows that, for the highest office in the land, they considered it important not merely that you be a citizen, but that you come from a family that had shown a generational commitment to the nation.”
That last sentence is incorrect. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires only that a candidate for the Presidency be a natural born citizen. It does not require that the parents were born in this country or even that they were citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth. Since our country continues to recognize birth right citizenship it is only necessary to be born in this country to be a natural citizen. Consequently, the Founding Fathers were most certainly not introducing a concept of generational commitment to the country as a prerequisite for holding the presidency. They could have if they had wanted to but they did not. That is because they were doing everything they could to take ancestry out of the equation.
I concede that Kingship in northern barbaric societies was not inherited. Nevertheless, candidates for the position never came from the peasant class. They always came from the warrior class, that is to say the upper class. Membership in that class was hereditary.
While I recognize that Thomas Jefferson placed great significance on the contribution of the Anglo-Saxons to republican and democratic institutions among the English speaking people I am also aware that he was practically alone in this opinion. When the majority of Founding Fathers looked to antiquity for guidance concerning republican and democratic institutions it was not to Anglo-Saxon England (certainly not the Vikings) but rather Republican Rome and ancient Greece. I can remember no references to northern European barbarian tribes in the Federalist Papers. I am unaware of any Viking or Celtic pseudonyms adopted by the founders when arguing for independence or ratification of the Constitution, although Latin and Roman names were legion (pun intended). Even Samuel Adams who you quoted below thought that his generation was establishing a “Christian Sparta.”
While I recognize that the Saxons had an influence on the British Parliamentary system that ultimately came into existence at the time North America was being settled, their influence on our constitutional system is much more remote. In fact, the Saxon contribution is only significant insofar as it was one of many influences on the British system that in turn was an influence on our Constitution.
While I will concede that there may be similarities between certain concepts that ancient European Barbarian Tribes and our Founding Fathers believed in it is a different (and incorrect) thing altogether to state that the Founding Fathers were directly influenced by the practices and beliefs of those northern European Barbarians. Aside from Thomas Jefferson’s unique interest in the Saxons, there is no historical evidence that the practices and beliefs of the Saxons had any influence on the Founders. Furthermore, it bears noting that Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting of the Constitution.
Finally, The Founding Fathers did not establish a form of government that based the origin of the rights of citizens on their utility to the state. They created a nation that recognized human rights as existing prior to the state and emanating from a higher authority.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)