Catholicism IS Exciting

Though raised Catholic, attending parochial schools until college and participating in weekly Mass, my love affair with the Faith is a recent thing. I could probably blame many of my teachers, especially in high school, who presented the rich catholic faith as dead, something that was more dull than even geography. I don't think I can really fault my teachers though, and for two reasons. First, I had in me the pride and arrogance of any adolescent who has finally figured out that he can use his brain on his own. I have been told, by a good friend, that my ego is so big it exploded. While I respectfully disagree, he is right on one point. I firmly believe that I am right about most everything, but so do most people. I have the audacity to admit it. And believe it or not, this confidence has actually waned a bit. There is humility in me somewhere, I sarcastically brag.

The other reason I cannot fault my poor instructors is that the school, while ostensibly Roman Catholic was comprised of, primarily confused or self-righteous agnostics--or apathetic. It was not that I became a pagan, dissenting to rebel. Ironically, I took the side of the Faith in most debates, but it was mostly because this put me on the short end of things, and I loathed a fair fight. My defenses were notably pitiful, as I could not defend what I did not understand and what I only tepidly believed.

College marked a turning point for the worse. Although I attended mass, sometimes, God was put up as a contractual obligation to be fulfilled right before the Packer games. Then came the dark time which every Christian who has turned from God knows all too well. This period of despair lasted for far too long. A dark cloud covered me most of sophomore year.

I had finally started to attempt to come back at the end of the year. My mom, who is a strong Catholic woman, gave me a book by a man named G.K. Chesterton at this stage. I had never heard of him. Although he is now a staple of mine--if not an obsession--I did not quote the man until August 3rd in this particular blog. He is one of the newfound treasures of the Catholic Faith.

Anyway, I began to read his book, Orthodoxy, some time during the early summer. The book has a fascinating and strange quote on the copy my mom gave to me.

People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy.

Still a skeptic at this stage, I almost laughed aloud. Orthodoxy might be mildly amusing, but it is certainly not perilous or exciting. I actually had to look up the definition of orthodoxy, for fear that I was mistaken about what was at stake. But Chesteton had set his hook and lured me in, and the best part about it is that, unlike much modern advertising, he does so while telling the truth.

It might be expected that I devoured the book, but this was not the case. For starters, Chesterton can be a bit mystical. At this stage in my journey he was certainly a bit too mystical for me. But I still enjoyed it, working my way through his many paradoxes. For here was a man who could stake a claim to truth, not despite his faith, not apart from it, but because of it. And he was witty and funny too!

It is a great regret of mine that books do not make me laugh very often. Perhaps it is a testament to how drawn to reason and ideas that I am that I often miss the jokes in a great many books. I read Catch 22 and enjoyed it well enough, but only chuckled a few times throughout. One of my math teachers had recommended it as the funniest book of all time, and I allowed myself to suffer no small amount for missing the joy of the thing.

But as I have said, it was not the same with Chesterton. Further, no one had told me Chesterton was funny; no one had told me Catholics could be funny. Sure, our priests made jokes from time to time, but they were always the light kind that I was far to dignified to laugh at, not being a simple adult, but being instead a complicated and difficult teenager.

The interesting thing about Chesterton's story is that he discovered Christendom quite by accident. He calls Orthodoxy a “slovenly autobiography”, which I suppose it is, if by slovenly he means excellent. Anyway, the young Chesterton was a firm atheist, committed against the heresy Christianity. He recounts his journey to a philosophy and his amazement that this philosophy already existed in Christendom.

My readers know my love for GKC; now you know a bit of the reason for it. Suddenly Catholicism had the possibility of being even more fun than explaining why liberalism was so problematic. And Chesterton was right, it was more dangerous too. In comparison to eternal life, disagreements over public policy seem, and indeed are, trivial.

Although this is getting a bit long, it must be pointed out that this is not the end, but only the beginning. For Chesterton lead oddly enough to the first autobiography: St. Augustine's Confessions. Here I understood better the dark times I had gone through, and empathized with the great doctor of the Church. It was a very difficult read, but must beneficial as well.

I have read other things besides, but it has been conversion stories which I have enjoyed the most, perhaps because I can relate with what I can only call my reversion. I read C.S. Lewis's Surprised By Joy as well, and smiled when he recounted that he too had done a bit of reading of Mr. GKC before coming around and becoming the greatest Christian apologist of the twentieth century.

Now I am reading Thomas Merton's The Seven Storey Mountain. There are themes running through all of these at once horrific and wonderful stories. Perhaps the most important lesson of all though, is that Christianity is not something to be entered into out of fear, as many moderns believe. Certainly, there are many whose only raison d'être is the fear of God, which may be more accurately called in this case, the fear that they are wrong about Him.

Instead of being terrified into compliance with the Lord, these very reasonable men have discovered that just as there are laws which govern a man's body, so too are there rules that govern his spiritual and emotional health. Just as eating Oreo cookies will make a person not well, engaging in what we Christians call sin leads the soul to hell and the mind to despair.

It is one of the more preposterous fallacies of the modern world that freedom means doing whatever you want. “Art, like morality,” says Chesterton, “consists of drawing the line somewhere.” No sane humanist would believe that unfettered sexual promiscuity is acceptable. They draw a line in the sand somewhere, though they do not really know where that line may be at any given moment. Isn't it at least reasonable to believe that the Church, which had held her line steady for two thousand years, has a better chance of getting it right?

The Church offers a paradox to humanity. Obey rules which God had revealed to be good for you and you will be free. Just as the ins and outs of a ball game give us the liberty to enjoy the sport, so too it is with the moral life. It is only by submitting that we can ever be free.

I Dislike Coming Up With Titles

I have been shirking my blogging duties. There are several excuses I have to offer, only as a matter of moderate interest. First, I have been writing a great deal, but it is not the sort of thing meant for this particular platform of ideas. I've been throwing around the idea of writing a book, and have a few ideas that are plodding along well enough for someone who is reminding himself semi-frequently that he is only twenty.

I have also been trying to work on an article for the Lode. Actually, I've written several of them, and am now hoping that the editor calls upon me this week for one of them. I was rather perturbed last week when he printed two of his own, one of which proceeded to call out the fellow from Iran for his foolish remarks stating that there wasn't a Holocaust. Of course, I have what Flannery O'Connor calls "Catholic smugness" that would allow me to commit to writing the entirety of the editorial page for a given week would they let me. My editor is not so foolish as that, for though I would very much like to do that, at least for a week, it would probably make for a boring read to most of the school population.

Yet I am still not too happy about my editor's selection. Though I could impugn his writing ability without too much guilt, it is probably unchristian to do so. But as T.S. Eliot notes, "Editors are bad writers, but so are most writers." That would seem to apply to the poor Lode, which it must be remembered, is the paper of a university known for its engineering.

I promise I shall post my articles at some point, hopefully sooner rather than later. There is another reason for the delay, though. Whether from a resurgence of the perfectionism that I firmly is buried somewhere inside me, or a simple matter of a temporary funk, I've been none too pleased with the writing I've managed to do in recent times. Perhaps that will change. I'm not too worried about it.

Lode 1-18

Here's my article from this week's edition of the Lode. Enjoy.

There Once Was A Man Named Ahmadinejad

I was going to be sensible and go to bed, but then I saw a link over at Drudge that impelled me to comment on.

As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?"

Could it be something under than recklessness? After all, America has her hands full with Iraq. It is sad that the country which bailed Europe out of two World Wars is in a struggle for supremacy with a country the size of California. Such has been the history of empires. Guerrilla warfare can be most unkind. Perhaps Iran realizes that if it wants to join the nuclear club, now is as good a time as ever. Though cliched to harp on France, no European country is going to stop this; we and Iran know that.

The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.

Uh oh. What would be the reaction if Bush started talking frequently about Jesus coming back?

He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.

Does Jesus know about this? Revelation does not mention the Imam. I guess that would be, at least partially because Revelation was written before Islam was founded. Still, if this Imam fellow and the Christ have traveling plans together--my thought bubble shows Planes, Trains, and Automobiles; I bet the Imam snores really loudly--shouldn't they cool it with the Jihad? Just a thought, Ahmadinejad.

Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?

See "Uh oh." above. Of course humans can influence the "divine timetable." It's not as if Jesus is going to let us nuke ourselves and show up after. There would be no sheep and precious few goats, rendering his last sermon quite anti-climatic.

Their sneaking suspicion is that Iran's president actually relishes a clash with the West in the conviction that it would rekindle the spirit of the Islamic revolution and - who knows - speed up the arrival of the Hidden Imam.

I'm a religious person, but I believe I have something that many orthodox Muslims lack, namely a sense of humor. Laugh a little, Ahmadinejad, and try to cool it with the nukes. Please. Someone needs to tell these guys a couple of good jokes. Mine are terrible, but here goes.

Q. Why did Robin Hood steal from the rich?
A. Because the poor didn't have any money.

And on that Ayn-Rand-esque note I am actually going to go to bed. If Jesus comes back soon, Ahmadinejad is going to have some explaining to do.

Fishing and Wrestling, the Hidden Link

Head over to thoughtstreaming. That's an order.

Dear Troutsky,

My cousin is an avid fisherman, and he gets a bit angry when I make fun of the "sport". In truth, I have nothing against it except that I find it uninteresting. I much prefer grabbing a good book and laying in a hamock near the shore. I'd much rather catch a good idea than an infernal scale-covered creature.

Anyway, your point--which you almost made--was a good one. Let me see if I can explain what I think you were trying to get at.

I come from a family of wrestlers. My youngest brother just started his career; he is in pre-kindergarten. We start them young. My brother finished his second varsity collegiate match yesterdaty. Thus far I'm the only one who has "retired" before college.

One of my favorite wrestling shirts said: "You are made better, not by winning easy battles, but by competing in hard fought ones." Living in a capitalist society, winning is the ultimate goal of everything we do. Competition is a good thing, but the shame isn't in losing but in not trying to your fullest. As Ghandi put it, "Full effort is full victory."

My fondest memories of the sport were not the easy matches in which I pinned "fishes"--the sport's term for weak opponents--but the hard battles I triumphed in at the end after a large struggle. Yet the lasting lessons had little to do with how many times I won or lost. In the end, my record was trivial and has not stayed with me, but the years have left their mark. One of my coaches used to tell us that we worked harder than anyone in the high school. He was right. Boy, did we work hard. I know now that the human body can go a lot further than I would have guessed. Self-discipline can take a man a far way.

The point is that through tension we grow. This is most obviously understood in the physical realm: lifting weights makes for stronger muscles; cross-training puts one in better shape. This applies not only to the human body, but the human spirit, mind and soul as well.

Sun Tzu famously intoned that we ought to "know thy enemy." This applies to the intellectual realm. Rush's listeners are often called "ditto-heads". They listen to Rush and assume that because he says something, it must be true, and often do not engage with members of the left. There are exceptions of course, but "How many Rush listeners does it take to read a Chomsky?" might be a fair question to ask. The same applies to liberals as well. Head on over to The Huffington Post for what could be termed the other "ditto-heads".

Another good example of those who avoid tension intellectually would be most Christians. Francis of Assisi noted that we are to "Preach the gospel. Use words if neccesary." and there are many who would be best off winning converts that way. But Christendom would be worse off if it never produced another Chesterton who spent his time actively engaging all the moderns of his day. St. Augustine was called the baptizer of Plato and St. Thomas Aquinas the baptizer of Aristotle. If one is going to engage non-believers in the attempt to convert them, one is going to need to do more than quote the Gospel.

The point of tension being necessary for growth applies emotionally as well. Longtime bachelors who refuse to date because there are no good women are often hiding rather than giving themselves a chance to grow. The same can be said for those who are never without a significant other, rebounding ad infinitum rather than being left alone. It behooves one to be uncomfortable once in awhile, or as Chesterton put it, "I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean."

This is the part where I leave the computer and go out and socialize in order to experience some tension. Perhaps I could even turn off my music, which I am quite comfortable with and tune the radio to the teeny-bopper station.

No thanks. Remember, there is such a thing as taking this too far.

Lode 1-11 (I think)

I think the Lode printed this one. I'm not on campus this semester and the website is down, so they may not have printed this article. Regardless, here it is.

With Lenin's death in 1924 a power struggle began that would eventually give Stalin the premiership in 1941. During a famine in the early 30's, George Bernard Shaw returned from seeing a Russian play to report the good news that the people were overfed. H.G. Wells declared of Stalin that he had “never met a man more candid, fair, and honest.” He also remarked that, “no one is afraid of him and everyone trusts him.” According to some reports, the same Uncle Joe once had fully half of the population of the U.S.S.R. under some sort of surveillance. With conservative estimates of the dead from the purges numbering 1.3 million, it is safe to say that Mr. Shaw and Mr. Wells didn't peg Stalin and his totalitarian regime quite correctly.

The blind faith evidenced by communist sympathizers more than half a century ago is neither a new phenomenon nor an outdated fad. It should be noted that much like playing the Hitler card, it is always a bit disingenuous to compare Stalin to anyone. Yet there is a group of citizens which holds this same slightly irrational faith when it comes to their esteemed leader and the creed he possesses. I am speaking of the Republicans.

In an effort to better fight the war on terror, George W. Bush has allowed the government to listen in on certain Americans who make calls to citizens of foreign lands deemed uncouth by the establishment.

It is not surprising that Bush and his cronies have defended his actions. What is surprising is the reaction by most so-called conservatives. From Rush Limbaugh to Ann Coulter, conservative pundits stumbed all over themselves in an effort to explain why a possible violation of fourth amendment protections is necessary and proper in an effort to defeat that terrible foe: terror. Slightly less surprising is the party rank and file following of party hacks. Once the party of skepticism, especially in regards to a violation of a Constitutional provision or a possible growth in government, the Republicans now answer differently. Though there are some signs of a weaking of faith, for now, when it comes to the War on Terror, the Republicans have let it be known: in Bush we trust.

Make no mistakes about it, the War in Iraq, as part of the War in Terror is a matter of faith. Bush has vowed that we are to sow the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. It seems slightly ironic that in an age where Bush cannot use the bathroom without a cry of foul from the ever-opposing left, I am calling for more skepticism. Yet that is precisely what is needed from what remains of the conservatives in this fair land. The Democrats will continue to oppose Bush at every turn. It is the responsibility of true conservatives to make sure that we are dedicated to actual principles. We need to ensure that the Republicans are not merely the anti-Democrats. With the Bush administration possibly suspendingcivil liberties, we need to start asking some serious questions.

When do we receive our rights back? When will we hand Iraq over to the Iraqi people? Just how many liberties—and which ones—will we have to forfeit in this war? Until we have answers to these and others, you will have to excuse my intolerance for the behavior of the Bush administration. A tenant of conservative idealogy is the tendency to react cautiously. We've heard platitudes about world leaders before, and while Bush is not likely to send dissidents to Siberia, it is always good to recall history which has shown a terrible urge to repeat itself.

Robertson

Pat Robertson has done it again. His television show, the 700 Club, exists--one would assume--to draw the general public into the wonders of the Christian faith. In actuality, the show probably drives more people away than it saves. The Reverend runs the gambit from tolerably eccentric to raving lunatic who in no way speaks for the rest of us simple Christians. His latest antic involves Ariel Sharon, whose latest stroke is apparently divine retribution for "dividing God's land."
"The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, 'divide my land.' God considers this land to be his."

Quick query Pat: Technically, doesn't God consider all land his? Shouldn't all division of any land fall under the jurisdiction of this one verse? This means we have to give Texas back... I think. Also, I am not certain if we are allowed to sell our homes anymore. After all, private ownership is suspect under this one verse. Maybe God wants us to be socialists!

This incident demonstrates two things. First, one cannot read one verse of the Bible, apply it literally and out of context, and proclaim that to be God's will. This seems to be evidence of the need of some authority on the faith, such as we Catholics have in Rome. There are many people who disagree with the teaching of the Popes, but at least the magisterium takes its time issuing a decision, rather than making careless claims in an effort to boost ratings. Further, since there is one authority within the Church, there is no confusion over multiple and contradictory interpretations by people like Robertson.

Secondly, Joel may be "clear" in this one verse, but the entire book of Job makes something clear that Robertson chooses to ignore. Job was punished, not merely despite being good, but despite being the best. In this way he prefigures the Christ that Robertson claims to serve, who suffered though he did absolutely no wrong. Now, Sharon is not Christ; he is not even Job. But is it so beyond the pale to believe he is being punished, not for some sin he has committed, but only because he is human? We live in a world that is full of suffering. Yet the rain falls on the righteous as well as the wicked. The Reverend should either consult Job or read Matthew 5:45.

If justice is enacted by God on this earth, we have no need for heaven. Yet Christian teaching is clear that while Heaven and Hell exists, perfect justice on this earth does not. The writers of the Old Testament were caught up in a painful fact. This life is not completely just. Thus, the wailings of the Psalmist, the frustration of Solomon in pleading men to behave justly, and the "vanity of vanities" lamented in the book of Ecclesiastes.

My point is not to claim that I know more about Christianity than Robertson. In an effort to be brief, I may seem to have fallen into the same trap as he did, namely taking a solitary verse and using it to show a wider truth. I will let the reader judge, but it should be noted that I do not have my own TV show. With power, comes responsibility--or rather, it should.

Dependence Problem

John Kerry used to say something I actually agreed with when he was running from president. He mentioned several times that we needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That was about the extent of his plan as he didn't mention any specifics. This may or may not be one reason he lost to a cowboy from Texas and is still the junior senator from Massachusetts.

There may still be those who see a dependence on foreign oil as a non-issue. I believe they call themselves free traders. However, there is an incident overseas which suggests that this may be a problem after all.

Russia took Europe to the brink of a winter energy crisis yesterday when it carried out a Cold War-style threat and halted gas deliveries to Ukraine, the main conduit for exports to the West.

With a quarter of its gas supplied by Russia, Europe is facing serious disruption and price rises for as long as the dispute rumbles on.

This should certainly settle the matter. When the lifeblood of the economy comes from foreign powers which are volatile, so too is the oil supply. An oil supply that can be cut off, even briefly, can wreak havoc on a nation. Close eyes should be paid to this situation to see just how bad things get for our European brethren.

It would be nice if the powers that be would take heed. After all, we too get a great deal of oil--about half--from abroad. Yet recent news tells us we won't be drilling in ANWR. Before someone--Troutsky, I'm looking at you--hops in telling me that drilling in ANWR wouldn't have helped ease dependence on foreign oil significantly, something must be clarified.

There are two ways to reduce a dependence on foreign oil: using less or producing more domestically. Drilling in ANWR would have reduced this dependence at least to some extent. Whether or not the sacrifice of the pristine arctic tundra would have been worth it can be debated, but the point remains that every increase in domestic drilling minimizes the risk of having what is happening to Europe happen to us. If we are not to drill in Alaska, what is to be done? We could always ration gas like we did under Carter, but I think Bush's approval rating has fallen far enough.

It is true that America will not be dependent on oil forever. As gas prices increase, so too will demand for alternative fuels. There will come a day in the not too distant future where gas-powered cars are a minority on the highway. But the oil goes for more than automobiles, and oil will still be a vital part of the economy for a long time. Thus, it behooves the federal government to come up with an energy plan that won't end in an economic slowdown, or worse, all out war.

I don't wish to paint a bleaker picture than exists. There is not going to be a war in Europe over this business of oil. Likewise, it would be foolish to predict a war with, say, Canada, over a dispute about gas. Yet the point is still valid. Were a nation to be cut off from its supply of oil, least of all America, one can bet that a war would soon follow.

If I over-state the issue it is only because it seems that it is being ignored in Washington. Scrapping the plan to drill in ANWR is acceptable so long as another option takes its place in the debate that should be going on in the halls of Congress. Unfortunately, procrastination on contentious issues and pork-barrel spending seem to be the only issues that unite Congress.

Still, it couldn't hurt to hope for change. Maybe Congess members resolved to do their jobs in the new year. Keep those fingers crossed.

Where's the Standard?

Troutsky made a comment to my post about swingers:

Interracial sex was consdidered degenerate not that long ago. Who gets to decide and based on what? In the past(and still), chastity and purity were more valued in the female sex so one aspect of the sexual revolution has been egalitarian in nature. This emancipation comes with risks for social structure and control.

Due to the incredible lack of volunteers, I get to decide. Actually, I will merely yield to the authority of the Church on this one. The Judeo-Christian ethic is clear when it comes to marriage. It is to be between one man and one woman. Thus, homosexual acts are disordered, as is pre-marital intercourse. Now, one could claim that this is too strict, but it is wholly consistent. The main end of marriage is children, though it also draws a man and woman closer together fullfilling a unitive purpose.

Thus, interracial marriage is perfectly acceptable. Opposition to it was founded in our country's racist past, which has thankfully begun to fade.

The problem with the sexual revolution is that it has no real vision. It wishes to throw off the old standards of Puritan love and replace them with something new. Of course, it is not so much something new, as something which only gives the appearance of being new. Having come to the right conclusion that sex was not a bad thing, they have come to the incorrect conclusion that sex is always good. Chesterton wisely calls progress "a comparitive of which we have not settled the superlative."

It is pretty sad that swinging is deemed even remotely socially acceptable. At first, the revolution pretended that it was about love. Pre-marital sex was okay because sex was an expression of love. It helped that birth control allowed those nasty side-effects to go by the wayside and Roe v. Wade allowed the momentum to continue. Next came gay rights, since gays too, just loved each other.

Well, swingers have done away with that nonsense about love. Yet there is no condemnation from anyone save a few from the old school of Christian chastity. This is actually not surprising. Having dismanteled the old guard of Puritanism, the new wave is supposed to be a panacea. Do not question the revolution.

The sexual explosion is everywhere. Eventually there will be a backlash. Tired of sex being profaned, it will again be made more sacred until the pendulum swings full the other way and sex is again thought to be bad. Then it will be time for another revolution.

I could be wrong, but the left has yet to provide a standard when it comes to sex. Anyone can point out that something is wrong, it takes a great deal more to say when something is right. Until then, we will go from extreme to extreme; it is the habit of human history: doing things incorrectly. We need to remember that life is a balancing act. Sex is no exception.

Your Body, My Choice

Pro-lifers take a lot of grief for supporting capital punishment. It goes without saying that there is a very large difference between the murder of an unborn child and the termination of life of a confirmed criminal. Tookie Williams may have been reformed--it is difficult to tell--but he was a murderer. Killing him may not have been a pro-life thing to do, but it is a far cry from abortion. After all, actions have reprucussions, and society would be less just if killers were allowed to roam the streets in a spirit of forgiveness.

In other words, the supposed hypocrisy of the pro-life movement is, if problematic, less of an issue than commonly protrayed. Of course, if we would just lock up all murderers, rapists and child molesters for life, we need not suffer this constant talk about hypocrisy.

Yet, for all this talk concerning pro-life inconsistency, the pro-choice movement suffers from a similar ailment. I should probably clarify that not all pro-choicers fit into the classification that will follow. The two-party system has given rise to a strange and often false dichotomy. Most individuals will not agree with their party on everything. Thus, the pro-choice hypocrisy will only apply to a limited number of leftists.

My home state of Minnesota is considering a statewide smoking ban in bars and restaurants. While it is good that this issue is being decided by the states, I would have the state decide not to ban tobacco. A brief word from Minnesota Public Radio:

Minnesota could go smoke-free as early as this summer under a proposal to be introduced at the Legislature. A bipartisan group of lawmakers says momentum is building behind a smoking ban that would cover virtually all indoor public spaces. A similar measure failed last year, but several cities and counties have adopted various smoking restrictions that are creating pressure for a uniform statewide standard.

Apparently, counties have adopted conflicting standards for the ban. This may seem to illustrate the problem with local control. For those who set county precedent have realized what anyone with an even amateur understanding in free enterprise knows: if people wish to smoke when they drink, they will smoke when they drink. If Hennepin County wishes to prevent folks from choking down a couple of Marlboro Reds when they have a cold brew, they will travel to Washington County where they can legally indulge in both habits.

There have been a series of poor economic studies claiming that the smoking bans in these local counties has not hurt business. This is rubbish. Anyone with a second grade education know sthat kicking smokers out of bars is going to hurt the bars. By coming up with inconsistent standards, the counties are trying to force a statewide showdown.

This is all a bit of back story. My point was to demonstrate that pro-choicers should support the choice of individuals who are of legal age to smoke. After all, if "my body, my choice" applies to abortion, it should apply here as well. The MPR piece has a surprisingly selfish comment that illustrates the absurdity of the argument of the anti-smoking zealots.

Sarah Morales, 21, is a college student who's making ends meet by waitressing -- but she says the extra money may be taking its toll on her health.

"Unfortunately, because other people choose to make poor and unhealthy choices by smoking, I lose out," Morales says. "And it is my right that I shouldn't have to sacrifice my health in any workplace."

There are three things I would ask Miss Morales, as well as anyone who holds a similar opinion. First, why should you decide who gets to smoke? It makes much more sense that the person who will suffer should make the decision. This is the land of the free, dear, and if a grown man or woman wishes to pollute his or her lungs, sobeit. There is another person--not Morales--who should have a say in this, and that is the proprietor of the restaurant. Legislators forget whose choice is most being run over, and whose livelihood is most harmed by these egregious bans.

Secondly, didn't you know that waitressing in a restaurant would mean an exposure to the always dreaded secondhand smoke? Why would you take the job if you knew it would be unpleasant? Is it perhaps, because the sacrifice is in fact worth it? After all, waitresses make much more than those who work in fast food or at the equally dreaded Wal-Mart. If you wish to avoid secondhand smoke, I suggest you find a new job.

Thirdly, have you read anything about the effects of secondhand smoke? Or do you simply believe the rhetoric that the anti-smoking zealots spew? Secondhand smoke may be unpleasant, but it is not the hazard to health it is often portrayed as. The World Health Organization's website's search function wasn't working, so I got this from a page from some Wisconsin fellows. It's reputable because I've heard this study quoted multiple times from different sources.

The largest study ever made on [secondhand smoking] was conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) extending over 10 years and 7 countries. In October 1998, the results were published, showing no statistical relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer. The American media and the anti-smoking zealots has ignored the results of the WHO study choosing to cite the EPA study. This in spite of the fact that the EPA study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organizations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate.

Shocking. Smoking may not be as evil as once thought. For the sake of the argument of the anti-smoking crowd, I will grant that secondhand smoke is a health concern. Yet it needs to be determined just how big a health concern must be in order to allow government intervention. Terrorism, so-called conservatives argue, demands we let go of some civil liberties. Evidently secondhand smoke allows the government to revoke the right to use a legal product. Yet cars kill many more people per year than secondhand smoke. Will there come a day when the government takes away our right to drive to save us from ourselves?

The ban on smoking is tyranical. If cigarettes are that bad, we need to make them altogether illegal. This won't happen because of the tax revenue involved. It's unfortunate that this simple liberty is going by the wayside because we need to protect ourselves. What is even more unfortunate, is that liberals are the culprits in this preposterous scheme. I thought that if anyone understood the danger of giving away liberty, it would be my friends to the left. Evidently the right to smoke is less important than the right to privacy. Is it only the libertarian who considers them the same?