The Anger of Compassion

Is anyone conserving the Bill of Rights?

Tell me: just what are today's conservatives trying to conserve?

Does anyone know? Is there a standard? True, there is Biblical morality as seen through Christian eyes--but Constantine endorsed Christianity too, didn't he, so there's nothing uniquely American in that. No, we'll have to look elsewhere for our standard.

In his anthology, Did You Ever See a Dream Walking?: American Conservative Thought in the Twentieth Century, William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote, "American conservatism is distinctive, conditioned of course by the special features of American history. But it is also continuous with the orthodox moral and political traditions of Western civilization, and serious students should therefore know something of that tradition." Ah...okay, so we won't ignore Constantine. But Buckley goes on: "Turning to America, a close acquaintance, please, with the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution."

Bingo! That's the ticket: the Constitution. It's too long, really, to be dealt with in a blog post, but surely we can take a look at one part of it, eh? I'm thinking of the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. Let's see what's being conserved there, shall we?

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Oops.

I'm sure it's just me, but "In God we trust" on coins, and "one nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and Christmas as a federal holiday, and the swearing in of public officials on the (Jewish-Christian) Bible, and the recent moves regarding "faith-based" organizations...I don't know: it is true, I'll admit, that it's not Establishment of one religion, a la Church of England, but it's uncomfortably close for me. Any one of those could be tolerable--and hey, I grew up in this country with most of them--but put it all together with a president who claims that his "favorite philosopher" is Jesus Christ (and he's the "faith-based initiatives" guy) and a Rick Santorum in the Senate and an Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, and I have to say, I do get nervous.

As for "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion, well, we have a problem there, too. I don't know how many of the multitude of Anger of Compassion readers are able to opt out of various levels of taxation, but I enjoy no such luxury. So consider this: you are forced to pay taxes at the federal, state, county, and city/local level. Forced. You support courthouses and city halls and public parks and public schools with your tax dollars--and, more and ever more, you are forbidden to post any displays of your faith on those properties. True, those properties were financed by Jews and Muslims and Jains and Wiccans and atheists also--still, your tax dollars went there too. Makes you wonder what "public property" might mean, doesn't it? So we seem to have a contradiction between "respecting an establishment of religion" and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But it does give the lie to "free exercise thereof."

As for abridging the freedom of speech, please...campaign finance "reform?" And this one was shepherded by a Republican, John McCain. And we can forget any explicit depictions of sexual congress, because it shall be deemed pornography, and therefore won't be protected...oh, and we can ban cigarette commercials on television, because that's "commercial" speech and therefore not protected...oh, and of course, if you agitate against paying income taxes in the first place, you can be outlawed by one judge.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble? Sure, unless you fall afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act--signed into law by a Republican president--or various racist (read: "affirmative action") schemes.

Finally, we have petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances. Fine. Unless your petition falls under the limitations of the Freedom of Information Act. Or the PATRIOT act. Or various claims of "executive privilege" or "national security."

Hmmm.....have conservatives managed to "conserve" the First Amenment? Are any prominent conservatives attempting to do so?

Anger of Compassion First Amendment score: Zero. The First Amendment is a dead letter. Your own First Amendment rights? Take a guess.

Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Oops.

You know, when the typical conservative opposition to a new gun-banning initiative amounts to "Hey, just enforce the laws already on the books!" while those laws themselves are contrary to the Second Amendment and are, therefore, unconstitutional, you have to wonder. You just have to wonder. Because, think on this: the Second Amendment does not say that "Congress shall not," &etc. Oh no: it clearly and unambiguously reads "shall not be infringed." Infringed, not by Congress, not by California, not by the City of New York. Not by anybody. Shall not be infringed, okay? So all of the 25,000 to 30,000 gun control laws across the land are unconstitutional, aren't they? And therefore illegal. "Enforce the laws already on the books?" Gimme a break. And ("conservative"/Republican) President Bush favors extending the "assault weapons" ban? Yes, he does.

Anger of Compassion Second Amendment score: Zero.

Amendment III. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

You know, I really thought, at first, that this one would be a gimme. Really. I mean, soldiers in my house? Come on, boys, this one shoulda been a freebie.

But...but..Total Information Awareness? I'd allow Admiral (retired) John Poindexter in my house? Granted, he wouldn't literally be there. But all four of my computers are in my house, damn it, and that's where he'd be stickin' his fingers inta.

Anger of Compassion Third Amendment Score: Zero. Surprise ruling, but Zero nonetheless.

Amendment IV. 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.

Unless you're...well, sorry, but "no knock" warrants? Yup, the War on Drugs trumps this one. And, today, the War on Terror does, too ("We have always been at war with Oceania...").

Anger of Compassion Fourth Amendment score: Zero.

Amendment V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Oops.

Hmm....doesn't that mean no double jeopardy? Wow...unless you're the Los Angeles cops in the Rodney King incident, acquitted in a Los Angeles court but then made to stand trial in federal court for denyng King's "civil rights..." Due process? Wow, so I suppose that "environmental" and "administrative" laws, although never endorsed or permitted by the Constitution, constitute due process? Seems to me that such laws, by arbitrarily mixing the executive and the legislative, are unconstitutional...but hey, maybe it's just me. And I suppose that if you're suspected of being involved in terrorism, well, you're in a case "arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia," jes' cause, and that we should just take the word of the prosecutors aligned against you. The Palmer raids were just a myth, after all.

Anger of Compassion Fifth Amendment score: Zero.

Amendment VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Oops.

Sorry, the War on Drugs trumps this. Too, if you're accused of something to do with terrorism. Military tribubals and all, you know. Yup, we have always been at war with Oceania...

Anger of Compassion Sixth Amendment score: Zero.

Amendment VII. In all Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Oops.

Really, see the above: both as to the Rodney King cops--you'd really think they were railroaded, you know?, and as to those accused of terrorism. Remember when the King incident and trial(s) took place, and who was serving in the presidency at the time. Remember who is defending the "military tribunals" today.

Anger of Compassion Seventh Amendment score: Zero.

Amendment VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ah. Unless you are Michael Milken. Or Microsoft.

Anger of Compassion Eighth Amendment score: Zero.

Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Oops.

Obviously this does not mean that the right to privacy may not be disparaged or denied by Robert Bork or Rick Santorum or Antonin Scalia or others of their ilk. In fact, such vermin are encouraged positively to deny said "right." Oh yes.

Anger of Compassion Ninth Amendment score: Zero. Really, considering that conservatives regard the awkwardly constructed Second Amendment as clear, this one should be a slam-dunk for them. But no, they blow this one too.

Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Oh, please...I mean, sure they are, they really are, unless said States get uppity and pass legal referenda in favor of, oh, I dunno, medical marijuana?

Anger of Compassion Tenth Amendment score: Zero.

Final score: Zero. America's "conservatives," are, today, emphatically not interested in "conserving" the Bill of Rights. If any are out there, then come on, name one. Let's "out" him or her.

And may I be so churlish as to ask, if these "amendments" may be so flagrantly ignored--derided, even--then in what sense are they amendments at all? That is, in what sense do they amend, change, or influence anything?

Just asking.

How Not to be Seen, part 3

Hmm...originally, camouflage design on military uniforms were the work, not of a military expert, but of an American artist. Details this weekend over at Out of Lascaux.

A Bright Note

Is--and if so, why?--the term "Catholic child" offensive? Well, I was a Catholic child, and (as a child) the term never bothered me. But Richard Dawkins can raise your consciousness about that. He's raised mine.

Richard Dawkins is a stout defender of evolution, a Fellow of the Royal Society, faculty member at Oxford, and well-known author of River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Selfish Gene. He's also penned a startlingly appealing column in Saturday's Guardian, "The future looks bright".

A fine writer, Dawkins draws the reader right in:

I once read a science-fiction story in which astronauts voyaging to a distant star were waxing homesick: "Just to think that it's springtime back on Earth!" You may not immediately see what's wrong with that, so ingrained is our unconscious northern hemisphere chauvinism. "Unconscious" is exactly right. That is where consciousness-raising comes in.

I suspect it is for a deeper reason than gimmicky fun that, in Australia and New Zealand, you can buy maps of the world with the south pole on top. Now, wouldn't that be an excellent thing to pin to our class-room walls? What a splendid consciousness-raiser. Day after day, the children would be reminded that north has no monopoly on top. The map would intrigue them as well as raise their consciousness. They'd go home and tell their parents.

The feminists taught us about consciousness-raising. I used to laugh at "him or her", and at "chairperson", and I still try to avoid them on aesthetic grounds. But I recognise the power and importance of consciousness-raising. I now flinch at "one man one vote". My consciousness has been raised. Probably yours has too, and it matters.

(Dawkins goes on to mention his own favorite consciousness-raising effort, which I won't reveal here: go read his whole piece here.)

It does matter. Interesting food for thought, too--and I now want one of those south-pole-on-top maps--but still: Is this of any relevance to readers of The Anger of Compassion, to advocates of reason and freedom? Dawkins convinces me that it is:

A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word "gay". I used to mourn the loss of gay in (what I still think of as) its true sense. But on the bright side (wait for it) gay has inspired a new imitator, which is the climax of this article. Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").

Dawkins is dead right here. I, too, regret that "gay" has been hijacked--Dawkins's word, remember, not mine--as it has. Further, I shall never, ever forgive Democratic/Leftist activists in this country for the way they have corrupted the word "choice." But--and here is an important difference--I do not resent that "hijacking" of "gay," nor do I know anyone who does. The word "gay" as it is used today serves an important purpose, exactly the purpose Dawkins explains above; it is accepted usage now, and in terms of public relations the purpose it serves is crucial. And, Dawkins goes on to say, the same coup can be accomplished again:

Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, of Sacramento, California, have set out to coin a new word, a new "gay". Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.

Bright? Yes, bright. Bright is the word, the new noun. I am a bright. You are a bright. She is a bright. We are the brights. Isn't it about time you came out as a bright? Is he a bright? I can't imagine falling for a woman who was not a bright.

I like it.

I am a bright.

In his excellent Atheism: The Case Against God, George H. Smith points out that "Atheism, even in today's 'liberal' atmosphere, is still somewhat unacceptable. Simply being an atheist may be acceptable--if, that is, one keeps it to oneself. What is frequently considered inappropriate is to advertise this fact, or openly to attack religious doctrines." He goes on to say that "the belief in god is irrational to the point of absurdity; and [....] this irrationality, when manifested in specific religions such as Christianity, is extremely harmful."

Harmful, indeed: Leonard Peikoff makes short work of the very concept of god on page 31 of his Objectivism: The Case Against God, where he asks

Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.

Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to "design" is not "chance." It is causality.

Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.

Is God infinite? "Infinite" does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of no specific quantity. But A is A. Every quantity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of "infinity" denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition or subdivision. For example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The actual is always finite.

Can God perform miracles? A "miracle" does not mean merely the unusual. If a woman gives birth to twins, that is unusual; if she were to give birth to elephants, that would be a miracle. A miracle is an action not possible to the entities involved by their nature; it would be a violation of identity.

Is God purely spiritual? "Spiritual" means pertaining to consciousness, and consciousness is a faculty of perceiving that which exists. A consciousness transcending nature would be a faculty transcending organism and object. So far from being all-knowing, such a thing would have neither means nor content of perception; it would be nonconscious.

Peikoff concludes, "Every argument commonly offered for the notion of God leads to a contradiction of the axiomatic concepts of philosophy."

He is right, of course (even though he carries on to page 32...sorry), just as Smith is right. And yet, in today's god-besotted America there are two foolproof means of branding oneself as nuts: by claiming that God has spoken to you, or by declaring that there is no God. Indeed, as Smith himself declares in the Introduction to his book, "You are about to read a minority viewpoint."

So Dawkins is right as well, as he advocates the Geisert-Futrell nom de guerre, and he's right for some very good public relations reasons: "People reluctant to use the word atheist might be happy to come out as a bright."

Geisert and Futrell are very insistent that their word is a noun and must not be an adjective. "I am bright" sounds arrogant. "I am a bright" sounds too familiar to be arrogant: it is puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising. It invites the question, "What on earth is a bright?"

I do want you to read Dawkins's own Guardian column, so I won't post his answer here--or the follow-on question.

I like the term "bright." It includes the brilliant Dawkins himself as well as Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll, Antony Flew, Ayn Rand, Verdi, and Objectivist bloggers Arthur Silber and Joshua Zader and Diana Hsieh. And me. And, as far as I can tell, the Buddha himself.

Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon them and all that crap), on the other hand, were not brights. Martin Luther and the Crusaders and Saladin and Torquemada were not brights. Osama bin Laden and Pope John Paul II and Jerry Falwell are not brights. Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush sure as hell aren't brights, and wouldn't admit it if they were. Which leads to a delightful question encountered at the end of Dawkins's column. Again, go read it.

Great. I'll take my stand.

Meanwhile, you can sign up as a bright at this site.

Bright move.

Oh, and I double-dare you to challenge the Guardian's deservedly famous crossword...

Please...!

Howard Roark Blogged.

Who could resist?

Overachievers--and the Windsors

Whilst scrubbing the floor--for such is my lot--I learned, courtesy of BBC America, that His Royal Highness Prince William has a biographer.

A biographer.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, page 180: "biography 1. A written account of a person's life; life history."

Life history?? What has he done? The boy has barely learned to wipe his own ass, and he already has a biographer? You'd think he was a Kennedy.

Mind you, I begrudge His Royal Highness nothing. Truly, I don't: he has wealth and privilege to enjoy but he is not entitled to determine the course of his own life. As comfortable as his life is and will be, that aspect of it must suck. But...

But then--on my knees, scrubbing away--I experienced epiphany. I realized that being His Royal Highness's biographer has got to be the easiest job on the planet, for not only has young Will never done anything, he never will, and he'll go on to become King William V no matter what other decision he makes in his life, serving in said capacity to the day he dies.

So the biographer gig won't make for much excitement, and thus, for very little satisfaction--and neither will being King William V. At least...well, I really need someone to step in and finish this damn floor for me, but when it is done I get to read Human Action or John Dickson Carr. Or rant on a blog. Call me a "small r-" republican, but HRH and his biographer can keep what they have.

Keep Your Eyes on These Guys

Rachel Lucas needs to be added to my blogroll. Gotta love that subtitle ("Piquance. Impudence. Ordnance.") but even without that, the way she takes on enthusiastic statists Wesley Clark and Orrin Hatch is, simply, inspiring.

You really should be reading...

"Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do..."

Okay, some 'splainin'--here's why those links are over there:

Anger Management is worth a read simply because Don Watkins likes to think about important things, some of which are not obvious. Look, I'm not trying to assume a pose of "Most Americans don't think, man"--and neither is Don. Go read his take on altruism.

The Ayn Rand Institute is there because, quite simply, Ayn Rand has influenced my thinking since 1975. She's not only an enormous popular culture figure (hey, two bestsellers, each weighing in at over 700 pages?), but a profoundly thinker who, 21 years after her death, has yet to receive explicit recognition for her accomplishments in philosophy. Hint: her definition of logic puts many logic textbooks to shame. Lots of good introductory material at this site.

Banana Oil No, I have no idea what the title means. Nice culture blog, emphasis on film. Maybe someday we'll be watching "Ebert and Hamet" on television...

Chris Matthew Sciabarra is (along with his friend and sometime collaborator, UTEP Professor Mimi Reisel Gladstein) one of the premier Ayn Rand scholars working today. Chris does annoy some in that he likes to quote Ayn Rand and discuss, analyze, and attempt to apply what she actually wrote. Scandalous.

Classical Values is where Eric Scheie advocated the crucifixion of spammers, and added to Don Watkins's discussion of altruism. Take a look. Take more than one look.

The Light of Reason is Arthur Silber's home on the blogglobe, and what a home it is. Look, you people know to what extent I admire Ayn Rand. So if you aren't reading Arthur every day, ask yourself: "Why do I deny myself? What puritan thought courses through my veins? Do I not deserve a daily dose--or more--of The Light of Reason?"

Damn my eyes, I should have started Mudita Journal back when everything on the internet was Unix. See, I'd had this wisp of a thought (aided and abetted by Nietzsche and Walter Kaufmann and correspondence with Roy Childs and Nathaniel Branden) that the Buddhist metaphysics and ethics all amounted to bullshit, but that their technology of mind--meditation, Zen koans, mindfulness--offered value to an Objectivist. Yeah, well, I never pursued that--but Joshua Zader has, and the online Mudita Journal is the result. Please, be good to yourself : go there. Joshua also maintains the list of Objectivist Blogs, quite the internet resource. Finally, if you appreciate natural beauty, Joshua also offers New Mexico Blogs. Now I'm not saying that you are obliged to love New Mexico--but I spent my salad days on the west coast of southern Florida, easily one of the most gorgeous places on the planet. I now live in extreme west Texas and I'm telling you: New Mexico is wondrously beautiful. Let Joshua's links enrich your life.

It's not updated every day, but Objectivism Today is worth a daily check. I haven't agreed with everything they've posted there (they were wrong about the Sultanna Freeman thing with her Florida driver's license, whereas I was correct), but it basically functions as a blog for The Ayn Rand Institute, so I'm going to agree with more than 95% of what they publish. Give 'em a look.

Some bloggers have all the luck with their titles. I have received more compliments than I ever expected on my own title, but....well, noms de guerre like InstaPundit and VodkaPundit are just...perfect in their own way--as is Out of Lascaux for a blog dealing with art and art history. If you know the names Lascaux and Altamira, then you'll be excited to dive into this one...and if you don't, then you needto...and either way, you'll grasp my blogtitle envy.

I can't say enough about Prodos. Outstanding internet radio show (best, in my opinion--and I challenge you to check him out and contradict me)...owner of American Ideals, one of the best email discussion lists on the internet (disclaimer: I am a Moderator of the American Ideals list)...and founder of the worldwide Celebrate Capitalism/WalkForCapitalism annual (now, apparently, biennial) movement. Go there, go there, go there now, people. PLEASE: be good to yourselves, go there now.

More tomorrow.

UPDATE: The Rest of the Reading

Lynn Sislo's Reflections in D Minor is a nice treat. Lynn codes her blog by hand (no blogging software for her), sews her own drapes, and still manages to find things on the internet and think about things in the course of her life that will make you glad you made her blog part of your daily reading.

Roscoe Ellis writes the only online journal that I read.

And then there's Stephen Green, known to the world as VodkaPundit. Steve was on hiatus for a while, but he's back...probably because of this.

Outlaw Comics

Just realized, tonight, that the cable channel Trio is running a month-long series on controversial comedians. Streaming video is available here, although when I went there I kept getting a server error and didn't get to see what I wanted to see--Bill Hicks.

In fact, that's how I found out about the series: tonight's program was on Bill Hicks. Hicks was far too lefty for my taste, but I liked his edginess. He was observant and intelligent and funny, as when he spoke of audiences looking at him "like a dog who's just been shown a card trick."

Best line: "Carrot Top--for people who didn't "get" Gallagher."

Future Shock

Stephen Green is back, according to an entry at VodkaPundit. At least, he is due back today, according to the entry, which is dated July 15.

Well. I am absolutely taking credit for this development. Welcome back, Steve.

Department of Homesite Security

The Anger of Compassion dealt with some personnel questions over the weekend. Physical security is handled by Athena. Athena is pictured, below, with her principal mission.

Athena, a German shepherd-Rottweiler mix, has performed her duties peerlessly for over two years. However, by mid-Saturday morning, a cute Doberman (or Doberman mix) pup had volunteered his services as physical security assistant. We posted flyers in the neighborhood, unable to imagine anyone willing to lose such a friendly little guy, but no one has (as of late Sunday evening) stepped forward to claim him. We think a Dobermutt should make a nice complement to a Rotten Shepherd, and it looks as if he's found a new home. The photo below shows an office intern briefing young Apollo on some of his duties.

Happy Anniversary, Boys

Nice to read this today:

[Eugene Volokh, 5:21 AM]
28 years ago, on Friday, June 13, 1975, our parents brought Sasha and me out of the Soviet Union.

Well, glad you guys got out of there, and thanks for The Volokh Conspiracy.

A Twist on a Good Idea

After I blogged Eric Scheie's proposal that spammers be crucified on the internet, Eric dropped by the comments section to expand a bit on his original idea. Ever the innovators, the R&D fellows at The Anger of Compassion's own skunkworks put their heads together to really give this thing legs.

Eric commented: "It is estimated that around 200 spammers account for 90% of the spam. This makes the proposal not only modest, but also eco-friendly. Unlike the Romans, we wouldn't need to denude entire forests to fuel the cross market. (If need be, we could always use entirely recycled materials from outmoded computers which might otherwise pollute landfills.) Unlike taxation of the Internet (or other federal schemes which have been proposed), this would do no harm to anyone except a very small, malevolent minority."

The idea could also be combined with the old punishment of being confined to the stocks, which would also serve to finance the program. As in Eric's original suggestion, the spammers would be crucified on the internet--but tickets would also be sold for those who would like to be present for the crucifixion itself. Those purchasing tickets would have the right to taunt the malefactors with shouts of "Own your own business! Work from home!" and "You can double the size of your penis!" Purchasers of premium tickets would be allowed to tie a mouse around the dying spammers' wrist and tell him, "Click here if you'd like to be removed!"

It was also suggested (gotta love those R&D types) that the Pilate Program, if successful, could be expanded to include the Nigerian scammers, anyone sending chain letter emails, and more, to include, specifically:

1. Any politician who proposes taxing email.

2. Any politician who proposes taxing or regulating the internet in any way.

3. Any politician.

Changing the Light

Arthur Silber's just posted that he'll be making some changes at his outstanding blog, The Light of Reason. Eliminating comments, more of an emphasis on aesthetics, ditching Objectivism in favor of the Russian Orthodox Church, and, most significantly I think, this:

"And much less writing about gay issues. The internet seems to do strange things to people, and to their sense of manners, to say nothing of basic decency (in addition to which, our culture in general puts very little premium on manners these days). Whenever I write about gay issues, and especially about very personal aspects of them, some people seem to feel that they can say pretty much whatever the hell they want to me, speculate groundlessly about my psychology, and generally tramp around in my soul. Well, no more of that here."

I cannot say that I approve. I'm not much interested in gay issues, so I don't do much reading in that area--but I always thought Arthur approached the subject in a thoughtful, insightful manner. I don't mean to imply that he is capable of insights in that subject (or any other) simply because he himself is gay, but rather, that he approached the subject not just as a gay man, but as a defender of reason and individual rights. Because of this, I learned a few things and had to rethink a few things, and I'm glad. And now he proposes to do less of it, and it's the blogosphere's loss, and mine.

Just kidding about the Russian Orthodox Church.

No bias at All Things Considered

Is NPR's "All Things Considered" bad for my blood pressure?

Yesterday, while driving home from work, I heard the following remarks on the program:

-- Violence "breaks out" in the Middle East, after a Hamas bombing incident

-- The Israeli military response is referred to as "strikes"

-- "Prime Minister" Abbas of the "Palestinian Authority" is "seeking a dialogue with Hamas."

I see. I guess members and associates of Hamas possess no volition and thus cannot be blamed when violence "breaks out" as a result of their actions, but the Israelis now, they are deliberately inflicting harm with their "strikes." Meanwhile, Abbas desires tea and crumpets with those whose entire program is, deliberately, murder.

In another segment, on the developing financial scandal at the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac, the organization was consistently referred to as "the company." No mention that "the company" was created by Congress in 1970 or that "the company" is subsidized by U.S. taxpayers or that "the company" enjoys special lines of credit with the U.S. Treasury or that "the company" board consists of political appointees.

Nope, no bias here. Move along now, folks, nothing to see.

The Blair Which Standards Project

Does the blogosphere need another verb? The Anger of Compassion wonders...

Remember Blair Hornstine, the girl who successfully sued her high school to be named the sole valedictorian of her graduating class? She sued because Moorestown (N.J.) High School had tried to get her to share the valedictorian honor with another student. You can read the story here and here, at NBC10.com and at ReasonOnline, respectively.

Blair Hornstine suffers from an immune system malady which produces symptoms similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, so officials at Moorestown High School allowed her to pursue much of the last two years of her academic schedule at home, with tutors. Here is where the problems began, because Blair was exempted from the attendance requirements required of other students, including physical education classes. This imposed a double handicap on the two students vying for the valedictorian title against Blair: not only was she not required to take the courses they were required to take, but, according to NBC10.com, "The two other Moorestown High School seniors with nearly perfect grades could not match her grade-point average, officials said, because classes like gym receive less weight in calculating the grade-point average, or GPA."

Bad enough? It gets worse.

From Sara Rimensnyder's ReasonOnline story:

Because she was diagnosed with a chronic-fatigue syndrome-like illness, she spends half the day doing conference courses at home. This has helped her to score the highest grade point average (GPA) in school, because she's able to take (and excel at) more advanced-placement (AP) level courses than would normally be available. Naturally, the other overachievers, who dutifully spend eight hours daily suffering at their desks in whatever classes the school offers, complained, and administrators decided to split up the valedictorian honor. Fair enough.

But not fair enough for Blair Hornstine: she sued the school district, and U. S. District Judge Freda Wolfson ruled in her favor, ordering Moorestown to name Hornstine the sole valedictorian. Again, from the NBC10.com story: "In a written statement, Hornstine said sharing the valedictorian title would have 'left unprotected the next disabled student.' She added that the lawsuit was 'an act of necessity, aimed at saving others from apathy.'" Lawsuit? Oh yes, there's more: Hornstine is suing the disctrict for over two and a half million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages, and, of course, legal costs.

Consider:

1. Is it not clear that Blair Hornstine is not actually Moorestown High's valedictorian? Isn't it clear that her two competitors were held to standards from which she was specifically exempted? Since she didn't do what is officially required, she is the valedictorian in name only, the Milli Vanilli-torian, if you will.

2. From what does Hornstine think disabled students should be "protected?" School officials granted her accomodations in her academic schedule, accomodations not available to other students, accomodations which ultimately provided numerical advantages in computing the final grade-point averages on which the valedictorian title depends.

3. What "damages" is Hornstine talking about? She was accepted into Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford. She prevailed in her lawsuit and was awarded the title she wanted. In fact, the school never even tried to deny her the title, did they? They merely tried to name more than one student as valedictorian.

4. From Federal Judiciary Frequently Asked Questions, "Parties instituting a civil action in district court are required to pay a filing fee pursuant to Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 1914. The current fee is $150." So, $2.7 million minus $150...it could be mighty lucrative, being damaged that way, being almost made to share a title with someone who actually met the standards for that title.

Bad enough yet? It gets worse.

Using the time she wasn't spending in physical education classes at Moorestown High, Blair Hornstine was "writing" for the Cherry Hill (N.J.) Courier-Post. This headline from Newsday says it all: "Valedictorian apologizes for failing to attribute in columns." Actually, the headline says too much, as we see in Geoff Mulvihill's story, datelined Cherry Hill, N.J.:

A high school student who won a lawsuit to be named sole valedictorian has admitted she did not properly attribute information in three articles and two essays she wrote for the Courier-Post of Cherry Hill.

Blair Hornstine, 18, explained her actions in a column published in the newspaper Tuesday, but she did not apologize."

Blair Hornstine wrote six separate items for the Courier-Post, and according to market development director Carl Lovern, only one of them raised no attribution problems. For this, keep in mind, she is not apologizing. So just what the hell happened? It's simple: Blair Hornstine plagiarized, taking the words of others and putting her own name on them for publication. She stole the words of Supreme Court Justices Potter Stewart and William Brennan and the words of President Bill Clinton, and those of at least five other sources. Stolen, for that is what plagiarism is: from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1975: "plagiarize: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own."

Hornstine's own statement on the matter was published in the Courier-Post. Quoting from the Newsday story: "'I am not a professional journalist. I was a 17-year-old with no experience in writing newspaper articles,' she wrote. "Upon reflection, I am now cognizant that proper citation allows scholars of the future to constantly re-evaluate and re-examine academic works."

Excuse me, but..."scholars of the future?" How about a writer's own contemporary readers, or editors? How about those writers whose words were stolen? The entire non-apology is simply Clintonian, and I recommend you read the entire thing. Hornstine's discussion of footnotes strikes me as quite deliberate misdirection (ask yourself: ever seen footnotes in a newspaper?) and nowhere will you encounter the word "plagiarism." Nor the words "misappropriated," "stolen," "sorry," "apologize," or "wrong."

And her defenders are worse. Her lawyer, Edwin J. Jacobs Jr., is quoted in the Newsday story: "It was a whole lot of nothing. She wrote some fluff pieces for a kid-chat column." Fluff pieces--in which she quotes a president and two Supreme Court associate justices. Fluff pieces--in which she discusses U.S. tensions with Iraq and North Korea. Another defender, Steven K. Kudatzky, is quoted in the The Harvard Crimson Online, as saying all of it is a "non-issue," and says that it is all "something that is another example of Blair being singled out and victimized."

Singled out? To be sure: Hornstine was selected to write for the Courier-Post not once but six times. But who has taken unfair advantage of whom? The victim here is the Courier-Post, not Blair Hornstine.

For some examples of the allegedly innocent errors Hornstine committed, take a look here.

When I was ten years old, I drew a picture of The Beatles performing the song "Let It Be," complete with dialogue balloons. A girl in my fifth-grade class liked it, so I gave it to her and she took it home. Some time later, at a school art fair, I saw my picture, with Paul McCartney's lyrics erased and "Oh, A-B-C..." written in (The Jackson 5's "A-B-C" was popular at the time). The drawing had received an Honorable Mention notice at the art fair--and it bore someone else's name: that of the younger brother of my female classmate.

Of course I protested, the Honorable Mention notice was withdrawn, and the young boy who paraded my work as his own was admonished. This fourth-grade child, nine years old, was expected to understand that taking credit for someone else's work is wrong. Blair Hornstine is an adult and but months away from entering Harvard, ultimately to become a lawyer (come on, you did see that one coming, didn't you?), and refuses to admit that she did anything wrong, and in fact publicly asserts that she thought her little cut and paste exercise with the words of others was all right because newspapers don't use footnotes.

A final quote from the Inquirer story:

Moorestown Superintendent Paul Kadri cited the pending civil suit and student confidentiality yesterday in declining to say whether the district would take a closer look at Hornstine's academic work.

But Kadri did say students should know to give proper attribution in their work."

---------------------------------
hornstine -- verb, intransitive: 1. to accept no responsibility for one's own faults, mistakes, omissions or misdeeds; 2. to attribute all of one's misfortunes to the malice of others

Onward with learning languages

I've decided what materials I'll be using this week, and what goals to set, in my pursuit of being multilingual.

For Latin, I want to get through chapter three of Wheelock's Latin. I know I didn't manage to get through two chapters last week, but something tells me that I should be able to get through two chapters a week. If I don't manage to do so this time, then I'll drop my pie-in-the-sky Latin schedule and move the intensity back a bit.

For French, I'll begin with Charles Duff's French For Beginners, which seems to be out of print. Oh well, I have a copy, which is all that counts. I don't find French vocabulary to be difficult, nor the spelling...but French pronunciation is giving me trouble, so I'm also going to be exploiting a Berlitz cassette tape set and a Pimsleur CD set.

For Spanish I'll be moving into Madrigal's Magic Key to Spanish, by Maria Madrigal. I have some tapes, too, and perhaps they'll help me in one of my Spanish subgoals this week: that of expanding my conversational range. For months now, I have exchanged minor pleasantries at work with the woman who cleans my office. Now I want to expand my range of Spanish conversational contacts, to clerical, finance, and field engineering people. So that's the final goal for Spanish.

As for that pesky Arabic alphabet, I think I'll pass.

The gift of laughter

For readers only: the Alpha-cum-Omega Wodehouse Portal can be found here .

Benefits of a Classical Education

A free market--indeed, outright Rothbardian!--approach to the death penalty, an opportunity for website owners to make some money, and a way to get rid of spammers: all from Eric Scheie at Classical Values:

I propose a very modest, classical solution to the problem. An old idea, really. I am sure everyone has heard of it.

CRUCIFIXION

Spammers could simply be crucified along the highways, just the way the Romans did it. As in the good old days of public crucifixions along the Via Appia, here the modern Al Gore Information Superhighway could be seamlessly linked to live crucifixions via strategic web cams, viewable at anti-spam websites, where we could watch the spammers die (and other spammers could witness the fates of their comrades). What a deterrent!

A real "Pilate Program!"

Needless to say, no libertarian would seriously propose that the government get involved in such cruel punishments (which obviously violate the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution), and I am not doing that. Let's keep it in the private sector where it belongs. Spammers flooded the world with shoddy advertisements during their lives, and it is only fair that their deaths be advertising spectacles -- the tackier the better! "Your corporate message and logo HERE! on THIS CROSS!" (Buy as many crosses as you can afford!) "Another spammer nailed courtesy of SnuffNet.com!" Securely fastened with "Palm Pilate" brand "finishing nails" -- as seen on the Internet!

Finding Nemo

I've no idea how Ian Hamet at Banana Oil will react, or Reflections in d minor's Lynn Sislo, or any of the other culture bloggers at 2 Blowhards or ac douglas. But I enjoyed Finding Nemo last night. The story is well-told, the actors' voices are good fits to the characters they portrayed (especially Ellen DeGeneres and Willem Dafoe), and the animation is superb.

The only down side for me, and longtime readers of The Anger of Compassion will sympathize, was the small bit of simple, spoken French at one point, which I missed entirely. That really Gauls me...

Reading Spanish and French

As promised, the progress I made in studying languages this past week. To recap, my goals were:

1000 words of Spanish, with some grammar

1000 words of French, with some grammar

(I'd written that my goal was to do some reading in my elementary French and Spanish readers by Friday evening)

chapters one and two of Wheelock's Latin
memorize the Arabic alphabet

All right, my actual progress has been:

French: met the vocabulary goal and was able to read the first entry in Easy French Reader: A Three-Part Text For Beginning Students by R. de Roussy de Sales.

Spanish: met the vocabulary goal and was able to read the first entry in First Spanish Reader: A Beginner's Dual-Language Book, edited by Angel Flores.

Latin: chapter one--but not chapter two--of Wheelock's Latin.

Arabic alphabet: didn't even bother. True, I already know some of the letters, but not all, not even half. I ran out of time (and, I'll admit, interest) on this one.

I'm pleased with my progress in French and Spanish. Although the knowledge feels rickety, it's there, and for that I have to thank mnemonic techniques. You can read about them in The Memory Book by Harry Lorayne and Jerry Lucas, and in How to Learn Any Language by Barry Farber. Farber should know: he can converse in about twenty languages. He's a big fan of Harry Lucas--as I am--and he devotes a chapter to the "linkword" method in his book. Both books are entertaining as well as enlightening.

Nor did I create my own linkword mnemonics in learning the French and Spanish vocabulary: I used two out-of-print books by Michael M. Gruneberg, Linkword French and Linkword Spanish. You can find out about Dr. Gruneberg's products here.

Are mnemonic tecnhiques powerful? Last year I went to the University of New Hampshire and taught a group of students how to memorize the presidents of the United States, in order. At the end of an hour, they were all able to do it, with an average of two mistakes each.

So: language goals for the upcoming week...well, obviously I need to strengthen my weak hold on French and Spanish. What does that mean, concretely? I'll decide this weekend.

Sasha's Zone

Sasha Castel has, after the Biblically-mandated forty days, abandoned the Protein Power diet, and says that the low-carb way is not for her. When I asked (in her blog's Comments) whether she knew anything about Barry Sears' Zone Diet, she replied that it was too complicated. As I am trying to figure out the Zone myself, I sympathize...and the mind courses through history...

Nathan Pritikin claimed that the Pritikin diet was not bland, and that hunger was not part of the Pritikin diet. Legions of Pritikin dieters have disagreed.

The Atkins/Protein Power establishments claim that such low-carbohydrate diets are not boring and that sticking with such a diet is not difficult. Many low-carb dieters disagree.

And now we have Barry Sears telling us that creating a Zone menu plan isn't difficult or complicated. I wonder: Sasha thinks it's complicated, and she isn't lacking intelligence (nor is she fat, so I don't know why she's even concerned); and as I said, I'm not yet adept at it myself.

But I am sympathetic/impressed with the Atkins/Protein Power approach, and it seems to me that the Zone diet is compatible with the later stages of the Atkins and Protein Power diets (the Atkins Center apparently agrees with me), so I'll leave you with a few words from pages 104-105 of A Week in The Zone:

No one has ever accused the French of not eating well, but you now realize that a gourmet French meal is really a Zone meal. A gourmet French meal contains adequate (but not excessive) amounts of protein, lots of low-density vegetables, a little fruit for dessert, and a glass of wine (which the body treats like a carbohydrate) to balance off the protein. A little fat in the sauce not only adds to the taste, but also slows down the rate of entry of carbohydrates into the bloodstream.

So Sears is telling us that some people are already cooking Zone-style, and have been for some time. I'll have to check out Pierre Franey's Kitchen again...

CORRECTION: I had originally written (and posted) this piece when it read "Barry Sears' Protein Power diet." Oops. I meant the Zone, and that's what Sears is known for.

Noodlin' around

Diana Hsieh, of NoodleFood, has returned from hiatus. Still no sign of Stephen Green.

Setting the record straight--finally

I'm glad to be a regular reader of Billy Beck's blog, because he alerted me the other day to fantastic news: the Pulitzer committee is actually investigating the possibility of revoking Walter Duranty's award. I opined about that here, and then Glenn Reynolds blogged it, quoting the UPI story. Think Glenn reads The Anger of Compassion? Finally, Brian Micklethwaite sounds off about the whole thing over at Samizdata.

From whence the threat?

If you are at all effective at managing your time, then you regularly spend some of it at The Light of Reason, where Arthur Silber has provided you with two noteworthy offerings this week. But even Arthur doesn't tell you that they are both part of the same story.

In "Fascism Rising," he reports on Surgeon General Richard Carmona's testimony before Congress, in which the aforementioned bureaucrat supported a ban on all tobacco products, and in "Fire the Wizard--and Give Freedom a Chance," he discusses New Left historian Gabriel Kolko's (well-documented) conclusion that the push for the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Trade Commission came largely from the to-be regulated industries themselves, rather than outside activists or concerned government officials.

Arthur quotes from the Washington Post version of the first story, in which Carmona is quoted as saying that he sees "no need for any tobacco products in society." For my part, I see no need for a Surgeon General in the executive branch of a free society's government. What this fascist little fusspot fails to discern is that cigarettes, cigars, plugs, whatever, are not found in "society" but in the hands and mouths of individuals who enjoy them and have chosen to use them.

Which brings me to my point--that this little incident before a Congressional committee is illustrative of the Kolko thesis. You see, the Post left something out of its version. For that, I invite you to read the Reuters version of the same testimony, which concludes:

"[Philip Morris USA] is pushing Congress to give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco and to determine when products can be promoted as reduced-risk.

" 'In the absence of FDA authority in this area, we are forced into making a difficult choice between making claims that haven't been validated by a government agency...and not providing smokers with information that may be helpful to them,' Mike Szymanczk, chairman and chief executive of Philip Morris USA, said in testimony for a separate hearing before the House Government Reform Committee."

Didn't I tell you?

And what the hell does regulating the tobacco industry have to do with government "reform," anyway?

Technical Developments

The Anger of Compassion is in long-term negotiations with the international outreach division of Out of Lascaux to improve the two-tin-cans-and-a-string aspect of our internet communications. Details to follow.

Worldwide Investor Relations Department

Billy Beck has made my day.

I mean, I already read his excellent blog every day, so it was just another mouse click this time, or so I thought, just to check and see if Billy's added anything recently before I go out for a run. But I didn't expect anything on the order of "Justice Delayed Is No Big Deal at 43rd Street."

There are times I honestly regret the nonexistence of Hell--among other reasons, because Walter Duranty would be there. You can go here and here to get an idea why.

UPDATE: Apparently the blogs of goddom, or the gods of blogdom, perhaps, withdrew their protection from The Anger of Compassion when I attempted to direct you to Billy Beck's outstanding blog. The correct address is Two--Four.

The forest or the trees...?

So the state of Florida has its panties in a bunch, and Islamic practices are at the forefront of...religious liberty? Sometimes, we at The Anger of Compassion aren't sure which emotion is called for.

It seems that one Sultanna Freeman, a convert to Islam, had her photo taken for her Florida driver's license--while wearing her veil. A valid Florida driver's license was issued and subsequently suspended. Sultanna Freeman is suing the state to have her license reinstated.

She should win, and I hope she does.

Writing at The Rule of Reason, Nicholas Provenzo states: "The question at bar is if Florida has a compelling interest in regulating drivers that overrides the religious protections afforded one of its citizens. Florida's own conduct in issuing driver's licenses would indicate it does not." Provenzo then quotes the American Civil Liberties Union, which claims that over the past five years, Florida "issued more than 800,000 temporary licenses and/or driving permits - without photographs - in the past five years to individuals in a variety of different categories. Convicted drunk drivers with revoked licenses are legally allowed to drive in Florida using only driving permits without photographs, as are foreign nationals, those who failed their eye or written exams and military personnel."

Read that again, those of you who find Ms. Freeman's lawsuit silly: if your license is revoked by the state of Florida because of your own drunk driving, you get a license without a photo--issued by the state of Florida. If you fail the (required) eye exam or the (required) written exam, you get a license without a photo--issued by the state of Florida.

Now, wearing that veil is irrational--especially in Florida, where the heat and humidity combine to baste you in your own sweat even if you're not wearing a veil--but compare that to the buffoonery of Florida's own officials, issuing driver's licenses to those whose licenses have been suspended, or to those who fail the eye exam. Provenzo concludes that this dispute is an "open and shut case," and I agree with him--but he doesn't go far enough.

For clarification, let's look at another Objectivist: Mark Da Cunha at Objectivism Today. Mr. Da Cunha opines, "This is silly--what good is a picture ID, if your face is covered? Freedom of religion doesn't give one the right to a driver's license, which is a privilege granted by the owner of the roads--in this case the government. "

Oh dear.

The older I get, the more I appreciate Ayn Rand's ability to craft meaningful definitions. Her definition of capitalism could have saved Mark Da Cunha a little bit of trouble, I think: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." Those words are from her 1965 essay "What Is Capitalism?" and may be found in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Now, if all property is privately owned, then real property is certainly included, and that means land and structures built on the land, from which we can, properly, conclude that roads ought to be privately owned and not owned by the state of Florida.

Florida has no business owning roads, operating roads, or licensing drivers to wish to use roads. None. Da Cunha's "privilege" argument is meaningful only if one grants that the state may properly operate in the economic sphere--an assertion which would have horrified Ayn Rand.

Da Cunha concludes: "Freeman's options are to uncover her face, or forgo getting a license. She does not have the freedom to force her whims on others."

Wearing that veil certainly is a whim, and a ridiculous one, but just how is she forcing her whims on others? Florida officials are acting on whims here--forcing some to have their pictures taken for driver's licenses, while forgoing that requirement for others, and then turning around and not granting that concession to Ms Freeman. Florida deserves to lose this suit--after which, they can get out of the business of issuing driver's licenses altogether.

Perhaps people are distracted by the silliness of it all, or by reflexive anti-Muslim bias--but the pundits and commentators all seem to be missing the point. I'm reminded of one of my libertarian heroes, the inimitable Frank Chodorov. He was asked, by a timid old woman, "Mr. Chodorov, what can we do about all of these Communists in so many government programs?"

Chodorov's trenchant reply: "Eliminate the government programs."

Minding Your Mind

I've been interested in Objectivism since the mid 1970s, and I read about Buddhism and Zen while in college. A thought bubbled into my mind last year: perhaps there are some compatibilities between the thought structure of Objectivism and the practice (not the ethical content) of Buddhist or Zen approaches to meditation. The question intrigued me, but I didn't pursue it.

Enter Joshua Zader. Johua is pursuing graduate studies in clinical psychology, has long had an interest in Objectivism, began studying Buddhism a few years back and actively practices meditation. Why do I mention the estimable Mr. Zader? Because his Mudita Journal is worth exploring. The subtitle "East Meets West: Mindfulness Meets Individualism" is inviting enough, but go there and you'll find entries--many sparked by published results of brain or psychology results--on mindfulness and its relation to mental health, happiness, and other concerns, and if that grabs you, then Mr. Zader has a short How to Meditate awaiting you. Good stuff: fascinating and presented well.

Joshua also maintains a list of Objectivist Blogs.

Challenge Week update

French words so far: 41

Spanish words so far: 75

Long way to 1,000 words apiece by this weekend...but I still think I'll make it.

Arabic letters: three

Arabic phrases: five or six

More updates on progress later.

Secular Sundays

You owe it to yourself to check out this guy. I'd never heard of him before, but saw this painting of his, entitled Martini Miss, in a book about, well, you guessed it, martinis, and I loved it.

You know, you could enjoy a number of Mel Ramos prints on your walls as you listened to Friday Night Blues, and while catching up on the archives of the American Ideals email list.

Now that would be an inspiring and enjoyable evening.

Fair warning: all three are addictive, far as I can tell.

Challenge Week

I am so tired of being monolingual.

You're aware, I'm sure, of the old joke: What's the word for someone who speaks two languages? Bilingual. And for someone who speaks more than two languages? Multilingual. So what do you call someone who speaks but one language? American.

Uggh.

In college I read Chaucer in Middle English, and the Pearl Poet (Pearl and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight) in another dialect of Middle English. Doing so required considerable help from French and German: there were two French majors in the Chaucer seminar and two German majors, and I was studying German as well (I was reading Goethe and Schiller and other writers of the Sturm und Drang era), so we all helped each other and we had a blast. It didn't hurt, either, that it was all easier than we expected it to be, and that Chaucer was a genius.

So that was great for what it was, but that was over twenty years ago, and it's not enough.

I want to read Hugo in French; I want to conduct conversations in Spanish here in El Paso; I want to, once again, read Goethe and Schiller--for I am unable to do so anymore; I want to read Pushkin in Russian and Mishima in Japanese.

I want to attend the El Paso Opera's Tosca in September, and not be completely dependent on the surtitles.

Come on, you do too: like me, you envy the James Bond of the Ian Fleming books (yes, the books). That guy had French, German, and Russian. He was smooth.

So, this is my Challenge Week:

French: 1,000 words of vocabulary; simple grammar

Spanish: 1,000 words of vocabulary; simple grammar

I want, by Friday, to be comfortable reading the elementary French and Spanish readers I have.

Latin: two chapters into Wheelock's Latin.

Arabic: alphabet memorized.

Progress will be blogged.

Gratitude Spot

To Arthur, Chris, Leslie, Prodos for urging me to get started on this; to Ash for suggesting Movable Type; to the entire technical support department of Out of Lascaux. Visit Chris's site; read the blogs The Light of Reason and Out of Lascaux and you'll be glad you did; argue with Leslie and you might survive; and at prodos.com you'll find "the biggest, brainiest, blockbuster show on the planet." Internet radio at its finest.

To all statists and other idiots; to the producers and other heroes: because of you, I'll never run out of material.

Thanks, all.

Entering the Blogosphere

Yes, I'm now here: in the grand tradition of self-publishing (for what is blogging?) stretching back to Daniel Defoe, among others, I'm here to post on whatever moves me, indulge vanity, engage the culture, rail at the forces of evil, and raise a salute when deserved.

That's me in the photo above, taken in January or February 1984 by Lance Corporal Gil Zohar (as best I can recall his name). We were young Marines in Beirut, Lebanon. That's a rocket launcher on my shoulder, more specifically a LAAW--Light Anti-tank/Assault Weapon--and it's in the charged position. No, I never fired it. Had I done so (accidentally or otherwise), we'd have both been dead: we were in a sandbagged bunker taking the pictures, and the LAAW, as a rocket, creates a considerable backblast. Forty meters to the rear I believe is the accepted figure.

Capable here, then, of anger and compassion. In today's culture, one must be prepared to brandish either, and at a moment's notice.

Martini Drinker Demands VodkaPundit, Creates Blog

El Paso, Texas--An El Paso man has largely confined himself to his West Side home since Friday evening, demanding the return of blogger Stephen Green, known as VodkaPundit. The man says he will not mix or consume a martini until Mr. Green resumes regular posting. Additionally, he says that in desperation he has created his own blog.

Local law enforcement officials would not speculate on the existence of firearms inside the former Marine's house, but did say that the home was known to contain at least two Macintosh computers as well as internet and blogging software. Apple board member Albert S. Gore, Jr issued the following statement to the press: "This is a travesty. I invented the damn internet, and this is a perversion of everything the internet stands for. The internet stands for freedom. He shouldn't be allowed to get away with this."

Janet Reno, former Attorney General and scourge of breakaway Seventh-Day Adventists and small Cuban boys, said that in cases like this she would not hesitate sending in the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team "for the children." The man's only son, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that he hadn't seen his father drink a martini all week, and confirmed that a blog was in fact being created no later than Friday evening. Morals guru William Bennett quipped, "Bet you this is all over by Sunday evening." From his Brooklyn apartment, New York Times fiction writer Jayson Blair filed a story, datelined El Paso, of his interview with the Dalai Lama, whom he quoted as saying, "Blogs are the cause of all human suffering. A martini, now, that's a different matter."

Stephen Green could not be reached for comment.