An Evacuation Day Letter

March 17, 1776

An open letter to General Howe:

It has come to our attention while observing your military maneuvers against our army in Boston that you may not fully understand your position. Thus we are writing to bring to your attention to two features of the situation.

First, you could continue your action of evacuating your forces from Boston and relocating to Nova Scotia. This would be a great strategic victory for General Washington, boost morale on the colonial side, and serve to increase their support among the rebellious population.

Second, with end of the recent unfavorable weather, your position is strengthened should you instead choose to attack. While we understand your wish to avoid another situation like the recent battle at Bunker Hill, we feel that we should point out that you did win that engagement.

What this means is that while an attack would no doubt be costly, you could achieve victory here, potentially nipping the revolution in the bud and eliminating the General Washington as an ongoing threat to your control of the colonies. The next commanding general would be in a weakened position and a future colonial army would be unlikely to challenge British rule.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of the strategic situation and promotes understanding and clarity as your suppression actions continue.

Sincerely,

The Tories 

Happy 4th

Hey kittens, happy 4th.  I've been thinking about the 4th a lot lately, and this being the 4th I thought it might be a good time to write about it.  You know the 4th don't you?  It goes like this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now that's a wonderful thing.  Our Constitution, our supreme law, contains within it a clear restriction on the power of government that guarantees that the people of our land will never have to worry about the abuse of the great power that we, the people, put in the hands of our political, judicial, or military leaders.  Since all of the people who serve in those branches of our democracy take a sacred oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, it would be quite extraordinary if this crucial set of individual rights were ever violated.

Our private business is ours and we never have to worry about "Big Brother" looking over our shoulders.  Any time the government peeks into a citizen's private matters you can be sure that such peeking is done for a good reason, and that this reason has been carefully considered  and found to have a probable cause, and that even then the search must be limited to only the things that are described in a legally sworn warrant.  This is a very high standard indeed.

Oh, I know.  It's just words on paper, isn't it?  Haven't totalitarian states often claimed similar "rights" for their citizens, legal fictions that were more propaganda than protection?  Of course.  The old Soviet Union had a constitution too:

Article 54. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator.

Article 55. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the home. No one may, without lawful grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it.

Article 56. The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law.

Article 57. Respect for the individual and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens are the duty of all state bodies, public organisations, and officials.

Citizens of the USSR have the right to protection by the courts against encroachments on their honor and reputation, life and health, and personal freedom and property.

Just words.  Didn't mean a thing.  But here in the U.S. of A. things are a bit different.  Not only does every public official vow to defend our rights, but our citizens will not stand by and see those rights violated.  Imagine, if you will, that we found out that our government was spying on us -- that data about all of the emails and phone calls of every citizen was being collected by a secretive agency.  Imagine that this was not based on any probable cause.  Imagine that the specific area of the search was limited to being everyone and everything.  And then suppose that this was all approved by a secret court, a Star Chamber, if you will, that had tried us all and found each of us to be suspect.  Such a thing would clearly be a violation of our most fundamental rights, and Americans would never stand for it.  We would rise together, hold mass protests, demand hearings, and work to set things right once again.  That's what makes our system work.  The Constitution is only as strong as the will of the people to keep it strong.  If that should ever waiver, God help us all.

Dear Mr. President

Mr. President, I have a proposal.  It's not a modest proposal, but it is a simple one.  Please remove our ground forces from Afghanistan.

I know, you've heard this before, but bear with me for a moment.  I know that you have set the end of 2014 as the date that we will get out, and I know that you are a man who sticks to his guns.  We can all see that you do that.  But what, really, have we to gain by hanging around and getting shot at?

During your administration an average of 32 Americans die in Afghanistan every month.  That's more than one every day.  During the previous administration the average was about 6 per month.  That is a lot of blood shed on your orders, and a lot of Americans who have far less to be thankful for this season.  What have we got to show for it?

Yes, you've killed a lot of terrorists, and there's nothing wrong with killing terrorists.  Love it.  Good job.  But do we really need all those Americans in harm's way to achieve that?

Yes, we've trained the Afghan military to defend their own country and to prop up their own corrupt, double-dealing government.  That's swell too.  All it has cost us is a lot of lives, green on blue killings, and having to take lip from our good friend, Hamid Karzai who is, let's face it, a punk.

So, what's to stop us from leaving right now?  Are we concerned that if we go terrorists will begin to use Afghanistan as a base of operations again?  Is that the problem?  Okay, I've got that one solved.

Actually, you've got that one solved. Years ago, during your first presidential campaign, you said that if terrorists (you were speaking specifically of Osama Bin Laden, but the point is still a good one) were based in another country, and that country was unable or unwilling to go and get them, then we would do the job.  You were right.  You proved it when ordered the assault on Bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.  You have proven it by striking at our enemies in The Philippines, in Yemen, in Kashmir, and all over Africa.  You can do it in Afghanistan.  You can tell the Karzai government that they are now ready to run their own country, congratulate them on their rapid progress, and get us out.  You can make sure that they understand that if anyone starts to use any part of their eternally fractured country as a base for international terrorism, we will strike.  We will strike with missiles, with drones, with air power, with naval guns, with special forces, or with as many soldiers as you, the commander-in-chief, deems prudent.

This proposal has a lot of advantages.  For one thing, we will be unsubscribing from the coffin-a-day program that we're on now.   For another, freeing up those troops will help the process of transforming our military into a more nimble, flexible fighting force, the kind that doesn't rely on old battleships, bayonets, and horses.  Finally, by setting up the military to quickly take on our enemies, regardless of borders, you will be creating a bold new global strategy based upon your successful elimination of Osama Bin Laden.  We can call it the Obama Doctrine.

With the Obama Doctrine in place there will be no safe haven for our foes, our losses will be reduced, and you will be remembered as the president who gave us both war and peace.

How about it Mr. President?  What do you say we bring them home by Christmas?

Geek-in-Chief

As you and most of the free world have probably heard by now, President Obama will appear on an upcoming episode of MythBusters. At first I wondered why. What is his hidden purpose? Then I heard the details. The arch-liberal has ordered Adam and Jamie to retest the Archimedes death ray. Clearly this is all part of a plan to replace our nuclear weapons with a solar powered alternative. Well that didn't work when Jimmy Carter tried it, and it won't work now!

I wonder if we can get people to start spreading that around the interwebs as a serious conspiracy theory? That'd be cool.

As soon as I heard that the president would be on MythBusters I knew we'd start seeing the Obama-haters making the usual idiotic comment about “more important things to do.” What some so-called patriots don't understand about the American system of government is that the president has two constitutional roles. He is the head of government and the head of state. In most of the world's nations these roles are separated. In the UK the head of government is the prime minister, the head of state is the monarch. In Germany the head of government is the chancellor, the head of state is the president. In Finland the head of government is prime minister, the head of state is the president. In America both jobs go to one person. As head of government he does important stuff like propose legislation, veto bills, run the executive branch, and command the armed forces. As head of state he is the embodiment of our national spirit. Like a walking, talking flag, he is the symbol of what we think of as American virtues. He hands out awards to writers and artists. He poses for pictures with Boy Scouts and astronauts. He calls the winner of the Superbowl and meets the World Series champions in the Rose Garden. And this president encourages math and science.

According to what I've read, the announcement occurred during the first ever meeting of a president with science fair winners. If that is so I am astounded. It seems the most reasonable thing in the world that the president would boost American science education in this way. If Mr. Obama is the first to do this then he deserves high praise for this wise and proper exercise of his office. And what better way to get lots of young people excited about science than to appear on the most popular of science popularizing TV shows, MythBusters?

Will a pro-science president encourage learning and lead to a generation of more educated Americans? It's plausible. And if things work out, we might even end up with a solar powered death ray.

Political What If . . .?

Marvel Comics used to publish an occasional comic book in which they posed “what if” question and told a story that was strictly outside of the “canon.” What if Spider-Man joined the Fantastic Four? What if Dr. Doom became a hero? What if Invisible Girl married the Sub-Mariner? (Ew, ick on that last one)

I like to play political what if. For example, the people of California are going to vote in a referendum next month in which they may decide to decriminalize and regulate marijuana use and growth. Far out, huh? Okay, just for fun, what if John McCain had won and he was our president now?

I'll just bet that he would have his Attorney General tell the Californians that it didn't matter what they wanted, the feds would continue to prosecute recreational and medical users. The 10th Amendment can be ignored by Presidents, the Commerce Clause allows Washington to override all state laws, and the will of the people be damned. The President would insist that the demon weed be destroyed wherever it is found to prevent the scourge of reefer madness.

Whew. Scary story. Fortunately, it is only a “what if.” Good thing we voted for change.

Trust Us

Don't you worry about a thing. This blog is protected by a high-tech blowout preventer. Go ahead, click the link. It will provide us with clean, reliable blogging, free us from our dependence on foreign bloggers, and it's perfectly safe. Besides, even in the million to one event that something should go wrong, we are prepared. Go ahead. Click the link. What's wrong? Don't you like America? Click it. You know you want to.

DRILL BABY DRILL!!!

Spinning Plates

Recently the Massachusetts RMV (what most states call the DMV) began offering license plates with the “choose life” message. The money raised from the sale of these plates goes to anti-abortion groups.

A lot of people have a problem with this. They argue that it is a political statement and the government should not be seen as endorsing one side over another.

I don't agree. I say that we should have more specialty plates. I'd like to see plates that support abortion rights. I want to see pro and anti gun plates, marijuana legalization plates, wind farm plates, casino plates, marriage equality plates, universal health care plates, immigration reform plates, war plates and peace plates. How about plates that identify our political parties (GOP, Dems, Libertarians, Green, Socialist, Whig), our religious affiliation (RC, UCC, UM, Baptist, Christian Science, Episcopal, UU, Scientology, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative Jew, Hindu, Shiite, Sunni, Zoroastrian, atheist), and whatever sexual proclivities we might want the world to know about (gay, straight, bi, polyamorous, B&D, S&M)? We've got plates that proclaim our affiliation to a sports team. Why not plates that tell the world our favorite store or designer? People who buy that one would get a discount when shopping.

There is, of course, a danger here. Once we open this thing up we'll begin seeing plates that support repulsive things. Imagine special plates for racists, sexists, homophobes, or Yankees fans. But that's the price of freedom. When you turn your license plate into a means of personal expression you're going to see rather a lot of personal expression.

Of course the alternative is to stop allowing these special plates. But then how would people who want to express themselves on their cars and send money to their favorite causes proceed? Bumper-stickers and donations? How quaint. And then what would our plates be for?

Boom

This essay on oil booming has been around for a couple of weeks now, but I don't think it is getting the attention it deserves. Oil booms are those bright orange barriers that BP is putting down near the shore to protect the coast from their oil spill. They don't seem to be doing much good, and this article, written by a guy called “Fishgrease,” explains why, clearly and concisely . Oil booms, it seems, need to be set up in a very particular way. Do it right and they work. Just lay them down parallel to the coast, as BP has been doing, and they are useless. But they are bright orange, clearly visible to the media and the press, and do an excellent job of making it look like something is being done.



Fishgrease makes some great points here. First, BP knows they are doing it wrong. They know and the Coast Guard knows, and no one is saying anything about it. That hurts, because I'm a big fan of the Coast Guard, but the point seems to be irrefutable. Second, this stinks all the way to the top. President Obama, a smart guy, should know by now that the booming that is being done is only for show, a salve on salve on BP's reputation, but he says nothing about it. Third, there is simply not enough booming material to protect the entire endangered region. That may be the most damning point. If you are doing something that is inherently dangerous, and if the worst case scenario is even remotely possible, you have an obligation to be prepared for it. If it wasn't already obvious, BP did not meet this obligation.



Members of the press and our political leaders should read this. Some of them might skip over it, because it is on a liberal website, is written by a guy with a funny name, and is punctuated with a lot of vulgar language. That's a pity, because people really ought to know.

Go Dog Go

The American Kennel Club now allows mongrels to participate in their dog shows. Shocking, isn't it? Is this the beginning of the end for purebred dog breeding, or will the AKC find some way to screw up mutts?

Our concept of breeding pedigreed dogs to established standards is a legacy of the Victorians, those wonderful people who brought us eugenics, colonialism, and industrialized child labor. People had been breeding dogs to select desirable traits for countless centuries, but it was in the nineteenth century that we first got the idea of breeding to a set of written appearance standards and documenting bloodlines.

Over the years, by focusing on these arbitrary standards, the AKC has caused dogs to be bred for looks instead of health. As a result we have animals suffering hip dysplasia and any number of other genetic ailments. So-called purebred dogs are far more prone to painful physical problems than good old mutts.

Rather than celebrating the fact that healthy dogs are being allowed to play in the AKC's dog park, mongrel owners should create their own club. Papers would be created to track the mutt's family background, proving that there is not a speck of pedigree contamination in the bloodline. Canine genetic diversity would be honored. Dogs of indeterminate origin would be celebrated for their essential happy, healthy doggy-ness, and stud books would be tossed into the ash heap of history where they belong.

Intolerance

Would you boycott a bookstore because it hosted an author you disagreed with? When did McCarthyism become part of the mainstream? Before we patronize a bookstore should we investigate their loyalty to what we believe to be correct? “Are you now providing or have you ever provided a forum for members of this party or that?”

In order for this thing called America to work it requires open forums that allow free expression. It also requires tolerance, even of those beliefs that we may despise. Without that the Bill of Rights is meaningless. Intolerance is un-American.

To Facebook or Not to Facebook?

A couple of weeks ago I set up a Facebook account. I did it more out of curiosity than anything else. I wanted to know what this thing was. I'm still not sure.

I didn't do anything to make my presence known, but some friends found me anyway.

I've only been looking at the thing for a little while, but I'm not all that sure I like it. The user interface seems to be poorly designed. When I want to change privacy settings I have to do a lot of clicking. And it's not all that intuitive. I've tried to use a couple of applications, but some of them don't work right. I've been told that when Facebook updates its system it can cause some apps to fail. That's pretty clumsy right there.

Then there are the privacy concerns. Just scanning the web today I see articles in PCWorld, The New York Times, and Bloomberg. ZDNet has lots of stuff, including an article on how to secure some measure of privacy on Facebook.

The more I look at it, the more it seems to me that the people who run Facebook are not to be trusted. Their business model seems to be one of exploitation. The users of Facebook are not its customers. They are its commodity. That's true of any successful social media network or any free web service. The real customers are either advertisers or people who are paying for information about users. Services I like to use seem to understand the balance between making money from the paying customers and keeping the users happy and secure.

I found this piece, advocating quitting Facebook altogether, thought provoking.

My question is, should I just lock down my account or should I kill it? I link some of my Tweets to Facebook, so my friends who don't use that service can see what I'm saying. It's nice to see what friends who don't Tweet or have blogs are thinking about. For that, if nothing else, Facebook is kind of nice. Other than though, I don't think I'm going to use the service very much. It's just a little too creepy.

Song Silenced

The school board of Franklin Township, Indiana, has pulled Nobel Prize winning author Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon from their school and out of students hands. The book had been assigned to about 50 11th grade students in advanced placement English classes. Acting quickly to protect the college-bound students from the National Book Critic's Circle Award winning novel, the youths were ordered to stop reading the text and return the book to the school where it could be locked up immediately. School board member, noted literary critic, and protector of public morals Scott Veerkamp, said that he “was about as appalled as I've ever been in my life. I wouldn't want to expose my children to that garbage.” He went on to report that he “couldn't even sleep last night when I read some of the excerpts.”

Indeed, great literature can be powerful stuff. Especially great literature that deals with adult themes and uses adult language. As we all know, most 11th graders have never thought of, been exposed to, or discussed such things before. To suddenly encounter them in the form of a book can be far too much for them to bear.

Seriously, these are students who will likely be heading off to college in a couple of years. In college they are going to be reading things that are sometimes challenging. Isn't it the job of a school to prepare kids for their future and not to keep them in an intellectually sanitized bubble?

Therefore, I now declare Franklin Township, Indiana, to be Maniacal Hooting's official Most Embarrassing Place in America ™ (outside of Arizona).

Earth Day: The Struggle For Survival

Today is Earth Day, a day that we have set aside to be mindful of mankind's first enemy, the Earth. Yes the Earth, our home and birthplace, has been trying to kill us for uncounted centuries. Millennia ago we were just another of her species, struggling day to day in the ongoing battle for survival. It's a game she forces creatures to play for her own perverse amusement, pitting beast against beast, creature against climate and catastrophe. One day a small band of humans rose above the fray and beat a small patch of the Earth into submission. Agriculture was born. The dangers of hunting and gathering were put behind us as ranching and farming were embraced. The Earth was tamed. She has never forgiven us.

In time we began to beat more of the Earth into submission. We gathered together in settlements to keep the powers of the Earth at bay. We called them cities, and from this was civilization born. Civilization has been our bulwark against wildness.

While we have advanced, the enemy has not sat still. She continues to be a threat. Hurricanes ravage our coasts. Earthquakes crush our cities and kill our people. Mother nature's hit squads, the beasts of the land and sea, threaten to tear us apart. If it's not sharks it's bears, if not bears it's whales. And if it's not whales, it's microbes. Lately our homicidal mother has been using a giant volcano. What's next, drought? Locust? Killer penguins?

The history of civilization is the history of our war against nature. Some of us seem to have forgotten that. But I say that today, this Earth Day, we should stand up as one and shout no! We will not go quietly into that dark night. We will light it up with electricity and coal fires. We will pave over the Earth and build walls to keep it out. We will cut down trees, eat beasts, and burn what we don't use. Then, one day, as we board spaceships to take us away from the lifeless cinder called Earth, we will remember this day. It will no longer be called Earth Day. It will be our new Independence Day. These future Earth-free men and women will remember us as the fly away. Then they'll nuke the Earth from obit. It's the only way to be safe.

A Bunch of Questions

I first saw this at Calvin's Canadian Cave of Coolness. Looked interesting. Then I saw Jaquandor do it. I don't usually play, but what the heck, I'm in a mood.

1. What were doing 10 years ago?

Having a nervous breakdown. Really.

2. Five snacks that you enjoy in a perfect, non weight-gaining world?

In this perfect world diabetes has been cured: popcorn, Pop-Tarts, anything with cheese, anything with maple sugar, donuts.

3. Five things you would do if you were a billionaire:

Buy a house in the Back Bay and another in the White Mountains. Make sure my family never wanted for anything, ever. Travel a bit. Create a charitable foundation with a silly name so I could hear it on TV; “This program is made possible by the generous support of the Fartentooter Foundation.” And I could use a new pair of shoes.

4. Three of your habits:

Cracking my knuckles, singing for no reason, wasting time.

5. Five jobs that you've had:

Movie usher, video game room attendant, salesman, mortgage banker, bookseller.

6. Five places that you've lived:

Near Boston. That's about it.

7. Five things that you did yesterday:

Went to work. Bought shampoo (they were out of realpoo). Took pills. Blogged about hawks. Read some history.

8. Five people you would want to get to know more about:

Hitler, Jesus, Franklin, Poe, me.

9. Abortion: for or against it?

When it comes to matters of rights and social issues you will usually find me supporting individual liberty against the power of a coercive government. While the decision to destroy a living fetus is morally and ethically complex, I do not want legislators or bureaucrats to make these decisions for us. I am also a strong supporter of the concept of equal protection under the law. A significant restriction of individual liberty and personal choice that is placed on one sex only is necessarily unequal and unacceptable.

10. Do you think the world would fail with a female president?

The question is absurd. Did Israel fail with Golda Meir? Did the UK fail with Margaret Thatcher? Is Germany failing with Angela Merkel? Female heads of government are accepted around the world. They are no more or less prone to failure than males.

11. Do you believe in the death penalty?

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand some crimes are so terrible that the penalty should be death. On the other hand I don't trust such a decision to human beings and I don't want to put the power of life and death in the hands of any government.

12. Do you wish marijuana would be legalized already?

Of course. See previous answers about individual liberty. I've never tried the stuff, don't want to, and disprove of it in general, but I don't think you, me, or Uncle Sam should have the right to tell people what not to do to themselves.

13. Are you for or against premarital sex?

None of my damn business.

14. Do you think same sex marriage should be legalized?

Do you remember what I said a bit ago about equal protection under the law? It's right there in the Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment in fact. You could look it up, as they say. How can you grant a right to one group of people and deny it to another and think that such an act is constitutionally acceptable?

15. Do you think it's wrong that so many Hispanics are illegally moving to the USA?

Wrong for who? Certainly not wrong for the migrants. Apparently not wrong for the people who are hiring them. Not wrong for Americans who wish to purchase the goods and services that their work provides. What is wrong is the “illegal” part. I'm told that if we could wave a magic wand and stop all illegal immigration it would cause several industries that rely on the labor to collapse. Obviously allowing people to enter the country only to take advantage of our social programs does us no good, but those who are willing and able to work or go to school should have a path to legal immigration. On the other hand I am concerned about the number of people who cross our borders without permission every year. The ability to secure borders is one of the basic security functions of government. A better job needs to be done to enforce the border laws that we have.

16. Should the alcohol age be lowered to eighteen?

Yes. Americans have a strange attitude toward alcohol. We treat it as a bad thing, something children need to be protected from. The supermarket in my town has a liquor section. If you have a bottle or a six-pack with your groceries the cashier, if he is under twenty-one, must stop and call an older supervisor to pick up the bottle, run it past the bar code scanner, and put it in a bag. He is legally enjoined from touching the package, as if it's close proximity could somehow contaminate his innocent soul. This is precisely how you create an attractive forbidden fruit and this is precisely what leads to secret and binge drinking. We need a more reasonable way to introduce young people to alcohol.

17. Should the war in Iraq be called off?

A couple of weeks ago Iraq held nationwide elections. It was another important step the people of that country took toward creating the second free and democratic nation-state in the Middle East. On that day the forces of evil (an archaic expression, yes, but appropriate nonetheless) bombed polling places, fired mortars into crowds, and shot at people waiting to vote. So the answer is yes. The people who would murder indiscriminately in order to terrify people to the point that they would surrender their freedom and bow to the will of the killers should call off the war immediately. I'm going to guess that this will not happen. It seems to me that the United States now has a responsibility to help the people of Iraq secure their country against tyranny and terror. We have promised them that we would do this thing and then leave. The president and the Joint Chiefs say that this should be accomplished by next year. I'm looking forward to it. So, I imagine, is Iraq.

18. Assisted suicide is illegal: do you agree?

Back to individual liberty again. If someone wants to die why do we feel that the government should have any power over the decision? And if that someone wants assistance so that the death is clean, painless, and dignified, then why not? If the law says no, “then the law is a ass.”

19. Do you believe in spanking children?

"Speak roughly to your little boy,
And beat him when he sneezes:
He only does it to annoy,
Because he knows it teases."

20.Do you worry that others will judge you from reading some of your answers?

Worry? No. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

Stupid Daylight Stupid Savings Stupid Time

Oh joy. We get to “spring ahead” tonight. We get to lose an hour of sleep. Tomorrow at 11:00 we'll all agree that it's really noon, even though we know it isn't so. Why? So we have more time to get the crops in? So we have more daylight by which to work?

We have electricity now dammit! And if you want more daylight in your waking hours, get up earlier and got to bed earlier too. It will make you healthy, wealthy, and wise, or so I'm told.

I watched a plumber working in our basement the other day (yes, I love work, I can watch it for hours). At one point he needed to run a pipe between two joints. They were three feet apart, but the pipe he had on hand was two inches short. He was about to go up to his truck when I told him he could use daylight savings to lengthen it on the spot. All he had to do was cut two inches off of one end, add that to the other end, and et voilà, it will be the right size. Worked like a charm, of course.

Field Guide to Bad Guys, Page 2

Another tip for identifying global bad guys: if you publicly disagree with them, bad guys bust in on you at night, arrest you, your wife, your daughter, and whatever friends happen to be visiting you, and then steal your stuff. No one will know where they are holding you. The local media won’t mention it, because they are owned by the bad guys. Today’s example – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Glenn's Book of Quotes, Number Seventeen

“Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” -- George Orwell


It's hard not to admire the pacifist. To rise above our violent civilization and to refuse the call of country or community to take arms requires courage. To answer a higher call, be it one of faith or philosophy, is not easy when your family and neighbors say that the defense of home, loved ones, the flag and all that it stands for, is the most noble thing a person can do. But I believe that the hardiest thing, for the honest pacifist, is to acknowledge the truth of this quote. We know that this is a cruel and bloody world. If you doubt it just pick up a history book or read a newspaper. The only thing that stands between us and that bloody world is the cop and the soldier, both ready to fight for us. That is the flaw in the heart of pure pacifism – its very existence depends upon the violent defense of all that makes it possible: relative peace, prosperity, and freedom.

There is no inherent flaw in the concept of peace or the dream of a more peaceful world. There is certainly no such flaw in the logic of those who would stay the hand of violence when peaceful solutions can be found. It is those who will take up arms under no circumstances, who call for peace at any price, who have to face the fact that the price would be their ability to stand on those very principles. The price of keeping them free to “abjure violence” is violence itself, paid by others.

While it is hard not to admire the principled pacifist, it is well nigh impossible to not admire his defender. He knows that some of those he fights on behalf of despise him for it or say that he is wrong for doing so. He knows that they could be with him or supporting him, but that they instead choose to denigrate his sacrifice. And he knows the truth of what Orwell said, and he does his work anyway. That, I think, really is the most noble thing a person can do.

Field Guide to Bad Guys

Tip for identifying global bad guys: bad guys try to crush dissent by banning the works of writers they don't like and by restricting their movements. Today's example – the government of China.

The Best Policy

Good news! Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis has announced a new policy. Boston police officers will no longer be permitted to lie under oath. Lying on police reports is, of course, still acceptable.

These new "civil rights" we keep hearing about do make one quite giddy.

Nuke the Sun!

The sun – man's oldest enemy. It bathes the earth with deadly radiation. It is the principle cause of global warming. It melts the icecaps, causes droughts and dust storms, and blinds those foolish enough to gaze upon it. The sun is a leading cause of cancer, auto accidents, and heat stroke. Today, on this winter solstice, when we are mercifully free of the sun's malevolence for more hours than any other day of the year, I call upon Congress and the President to finally end the the tyranny of Sol, put our military might to constructive purpose, and fulfill our destiny to destroy the sun.

Thank you and good night.