A Word on Socialism

Troutsky declares:

I am still prepared to argue that theoretical socialism, though it has never existed, is a preferable system on moral grounds and a likely next historical phase based on scientific reasons and am undeterred that this might be described as "utopian" thinking.

We must determine whether, in fact, socialism is a system preferable to capitalism on moral grounds. We must then determine whether an ideal system should be judged based on the theorized good it purports to bring or rather based on its fruit, even in a bastardized form.

First, is Socialism morally preferable? My morals are drawn from the Roman Catholic Church, which draws from both the Scriptures as well as Tradition. We go to the former first. In Acts 4:32, we read, “The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.” This is taken as a nod to socialism as the favored form of government of the early church. Yet the next few verses are necessary for proper perspective.

“There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.” (Acts 4:35 and 36) The church did hold things in common, but the choice of what to sell was left to the individual believers, with the task of distribution falling to the disciples. Marx summarizes his economic philosophy as the abolition of private property. This is altogether different from that of the early church. If property was simply to be abolished, Peter would have seized everything and sold it himself. He did not. Willful participation is crucial to those who belong to the Kingdom. Further, this was done without the involvement of the government, and is far more akin to the distributism advocated by Belloc, Chesterton and others.

Since humans, being subjective creatures, are prone to pick and choose what they like best from Scripture, the Catholic Church vociferously defends the faith, and at times the Pope issues encyclicals to promulgate Catholic thought.

As a brief aside, the Church is often maligned for being behind the times. Those who prescribe to this nonsense would be surprised to learn the date of the famous encyclical, Rerum Novarum, On Capital and Labor: 1891. Those darn Catholics and being behind the times. But I digress.

Pope Leo XIII observes:

[S]ocialists... are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.

The Vicar of Christ on earth not only utters the common criticism, namely that socialism is untenable, but, in fact, that it is unjust. He then explains why:

It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own... Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation... One of these instincts is self preservation, the other the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which lie within range; beyond their verge the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by their senses only, and in the special direction which these suggest... And on this very account - that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason - it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time.

I cannot but feel a bit ashamed at having to extract mere excerpts from what is a beautiful letter through and through, and an example of liberal, in the classic sense, Catholic thought. For the Pope then goes on to explain errors of capitalism, that, though not remediable by socialism, are yet to be corrected within the same system.

Now, we do not need to examine socialism's failings in practice since it has already been deemed insufficient in theory, at least to the Catholic, and hopefully to the Christian, who, though he might reject papal authority on all doctrinal matters, might still yield to good sense. It should be noted that the inability for socialism to reach fruition might be due, not to bad luck or poor circumstances, but bad theory in and of itself. To draw an analogy, I have designed many a play in my amateur career as a backyard quarterback. Some have been deemed, by yours truly, as worthy of the mind of Lombardi himself. And though it is possible that my brother's inability to seal the corner or adequately sell the fake bear the blame, it is perhaps more likely that my play-making prowess is more akin to Dennis Green than to the Packer legend.

Most important though, for the moment, is the issue of justice. If the Pope is mistaken, I have no doubt that Troutsky will alert me to his error. If his judgment is sound, we must think up and work on alternatives to socialism—such as distributism—which are not only more practical and implementable, but emphatically just. Until then, the inbred step-child of the free market will be tolerated, and improved where possible. The Christian should rest easy, for though things may be dire on this earth, a perfect and eternal system awaits those who put their faith, not in men or markets, but in Christ.

Hillary and Rupert Sitting in a Tree...

The Lizard Queen--do I need to thank Vox Day for his vivacious witicism every time?--slithers into position.

Rupert Murdoch has agreed to host a political fundraiser for Hillary Clinton this summer!

Drudge is surprised. I'm not. Murdoch will follow the money, whore that he is; if Fox News could boost ratings by making Greta go naked they would. Big Business is about making money, nothing else. Any idealogical purities are entirely coincidental. Plus, when it comes down to it, on what issues do Hillary and the "right-wing" Fox News really differ? I await your answers.

Technically, Murdoch is doing this on his own, which just shows how much of a conservative he really is. When the Queen takes her thrown, he wants to make sure his boys score interviews. Thus, the posturing.

Political powerbroker and studio head Harvey Weinstein is said to have convinced Hillary that Murdoch could be a friend, not a foe, in her ongoing political maneuvers.

Hillary has now cornered the NY media market, by winning support from the NEW YORK TIMES, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS owner Mort Zuckerman -- and now Murdoch and the NY POST.

But the people don't like her! If most people weren't malleable, this might hold some water. Since the capability to think rationally is no longer esteemed, the role of the press is enhanced, even amid falling ratings. Let's not forget that Hillary is a woman, and it's high time we had a lady--I use the term loosely--in charge. Never under-estimate the propensity for women to cling loyally to their ilk.

In two years I finish school. After paying off my debts, I may need to go away for awhile. I'll be taking suggestions for my adopted homeland. It might be more enjoyable to watch the collapse from without, rather than within.

Troutsky, I'll get a reply to you shortly. I was only signing on for a bit when I saw this and had to make an update. I've a Flannery O'Connor story to finish, after which I shall return.

Cable News

The good news is that my generation, appears to be turning off cable news, assuming we turned it on in the first place. The Daily Show and the Cobert Report notwithstanding--do they even count as news?--watchers of CNN and FOXNews are more likely to be sixty than sixteen, which shouldn't be all that surprising, but it none the less a reason to be pleased.

Seldom mentioned, however, is the fact that cable news is equally geriatric. Indeed, Fox News Channel and CNN are two of only three leading basic networks (the other being the Hallmark Channel) whose median viewer age is over 60. Headline News rings in next at 59.9, and MSNBC is still on the rickety side at 57.

This seems strangely akin to the church I attend while in the Twin Cities. And just as this doesn't bode well for Blessed Sacrament church, which recently closed the school after many years, one can't help but entertain the possibility that cable news will also cease to be in business. I shan't be long in mourning.

If you your news from television, you're doing yourself a tremendous diservice. Those who watch television boast brainwave activity analogous to being comatose, to say nothing of the fact that the news is less than newsworthy. Why do I care about Natalee Holloway? Why can't I rid myself of her name?

It is less clear whether 18-24 year olds are getting their news from alternative sources or whether MTV is all that is wanted to make of one a shallow consumerist whore. In any case, I see little good coming from endlessly observing the mutterings of lobotomy box, as Fred Reed dubs it, and being apathetic is probably better than feigning to be a responsible citizen. Those who watch FOXNews and CNN are unfortunately given suffrage, but those who watch MTV are less likely to use it. I would chalk this up as good news. The demise of O'Reilly cometh before too long.

Hope Springs Anew Amidst Decay

The inherent problem with accepting the lesser of two evils is that, something tolerated out of necessity is often construed as being advocated outright. To wit, the self-described conservatives support of Mr. Bush leads the masses to believe, not that Bush is more conservative than the alternative—a doubtful prospect in and of itself—but that Bush is in fact the champion of conservative ideals. Conservatives will have to reinvent themselves once again fairly soon, as the sinking ship that is the Bush presidency is showing no signs of righting itself—pun intended.

The other problem with tolerating a lesser evil is that so long as toleration is deemed acceptable, the evil will continue to increase, meandering further and further away from the supposed good. So long as the base is safely on board, the GOP will run the candidate most likely to capture votes from the mushy middle. The incentive to run to the right is removed; an unprincipled moderate would never support Buchanan; he would probably support McCain.

There is a corollary to this thought. Those who do not derive their sanction from principle, but instead support the most charismatic candidate are more prone to jump ship. The swing vote, by definition, swings back, and while the principled conservative will stand by his man who stands by his promises, in good weather and in bad, there is no reason for someone to show a similar loyalty when the loyalty was a matter of results in the first place.

It is a bit unwise to use the blogosphere to gage public opinion. Frustrated with the commoners who frivolously argue over which brand of evil and mediocrity to support, those who spend their time engaged in conversation over genuine differences of opinion tend to be vociferous, if sometimes tactful, radical members of both the far right and left. There are some blogs devoted to Bush apologetics, but they are few and far between. It is very difficult to engage readers in thinking when the one who is trying to engage is not thinking himself.

This being said, there appears to be a tremor in the force of the political spectrum. Having been hoodwinked and coming to this realization, rash promises are being made by conservatives that, this time, the deception has gone too far. With an election looming in November, it will be interesting to see whether these rash promises are, in fact, kept. My gut instinct tells me that though some will stay home, the absence of third party candidates in most House and Senate elections will see voters yet again casting their votes to the lesser of two evils, if somewhat begrudgingly this time around.

Despite Bush's optimism, the sheer amount of election speculation is a sure sign of how bad things are going for him. Hillary's name has been whispered, often; many, including myself have already predicted her ascendancy to the thrown, and it is not yet six years into Bush's reign. With an abysmally low approval rating, it is clear that most citizens are ready for Bush's presidency to see a merciful end, and even the most infernal optimist cannot spell but bad news for the remainder of the course for President Bush. I do not recall such virulence accompanying the end of Clinton's term, at least until after the sex scandal, which happened a bit later, comparatively, during the Clinton presidency. At least the circus that accompanied the charges of marital infidelity and perjury kept the American public insensibly entertained, and while the right erupted in indignation, by then the end of the Clinton legacy was in sight, or so it seemed.

We have not suffered any genuine scandals during the Bush presidency, and unless the Democrats capture the House and/or Senate, the allegations of dishonesty will be left for the history books. With control of one or both houses of the bicameral legislature, the last two years under the second Bush will be a circus of substantial proportions, making the Ken Starr proceedings look like a dull episode of Oprah—redundancy, I know. One has little doubt that the Democrats will try to impeach Bush, even if it is less certain what the charges will be. It will be interesting to see whether the GOP party hacks—Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.—stand by their man or try to distance themselves in an attempt at damage control. Believe it or not, there was a time when Rush had principles, as a perusal of either one of his books will demonstrate. He's not a very good writer, but that's beside the point. His defense of conservative thought is important, and one cannot but hope that the man who did so much for both conservatism and talk radio in this country can yet again emerge as a less than pejorative force.

Time reveals all. One thing is clear. A toleration of the lesser of two evils has had no good affect upon the country, at least from a conservative perspective. We are no closer to shrinking the size and invasiveness of the federal government than when Clinton left office, and it is all but impossible to argue that Bush has not contributed to the problem he was ostensibly elected to abrogate. Worse still, the election of the neo-conservative Bush has not paved the way for a genuinely conservative candidate, as only a fool would expect it to. It is curious to advocate taking three steps back that we might march forward four, and though illogical, it could perhaps be accepted were it to show evidence of working. It has not, and we find ourselves in the peculiar position of being worse off than we started, and being implored to not abandon the man who is moving us backwards for fear the someone else would move us backwards. It is infeasible to become passionately engaged over the degree one marches, when the direction is altogether wrong, and conservatives are, one hopes, mandating that our leaders turn themselves around and march forward.

It is always difficult for a man to admit he is wrong, especially when his deceitful minions have been whispering to him of the righteousness of his cause for six years. Though a return to genuine conservatism would earn Bush a small measure of gratitude among authentic partisans of the right, this seems a small prize to win in exchange for the chastisement he will merit for a massive capitulation on the principles of neo-conservatism. The one praise Bush has consistently earned is that he is principled, and while one wishes these were more in line with those of Reagan, Eisenhower and Goldwater, and though the fruit of this consistency has been consistently rotten, the howls from the remnant of true believers will be almost unbearable. The neo-cons have hijacked the conservative movement, and they will not easily surrender the castle. Further, this postulation depends on a fallacy. Anyone who has studied Bush knows he has never subscribed to conservatism, and while one can reserve a modest hope for a reversion to previous thought, it is more despairing to wish for an Augustine-like conversion.

Patience has long been a staple of those on the right, if only in theory. To quote Jefferson, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Knowing this, victories for supporters of limited government come infrequently. Since its inception, the republic has been sowing the seeds of its demise; it now reaps its fruits, and while we can yet attempt to save her from the justice she so deserves, ultimately her fate is sealed. While fighting as we can, where we may, we more eagerly await the chance to, in the words of Paine, “begin the world over again.”

The Catholic Spirit Editorial That Wasn't

About two months ago, my mom alerted me to an editorial contest at The Catholic Spirit, the weekly publication of the Arch-Diocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. I think. I rarely read it, but since I write essays for fun, I decided to send one in. I wasn't sure of what to write about, and eventually decided to argue that democracy is not intrinsically good, at least for the Catholic. I wasn't certain I had a shot at winning, for two reasons. First, I wasn't all that satisfied with the result—this is a reoccurring theme—and second, attacking democracy wasn't the best subject for a paper that is notoriously soft on, well, everything.

Well, I didn't win. I'll let the reader decide for himself whether or not I deserve the cruel crown of defeat or whether I was snubbed. I wouldn't have minded if the other editorials were interesting, but they weren't. The contest was divided into two categories: high school and college. The high schooler wrote a delusional, if we only spent more money to help poor people life would be fine, piece, the type adored by liberal Catholics. Poverty is a distribution problem and it always will be; it does no good to give more federal aid when the leaders of these corrupt countries keep the money or squander it in tangles of bureaucracy. But I'm not in high school, so I digress.

The college fellow wrote a piece attacking racism. How brave. Of course, using the Arch-Bishop as a reference helps. I don't know why we even talk about racism any more. Racism is bad; I think I've got it. Let's move on.

The genuinely annoying thing, however, was not losing to someone who defeated the defenseless enemy of racism. The thing that irks me is that no second and third places were awarded for the college level. Evidently my editorial was too poorly written to be published. The alternative explanation is that I stepped on some toes. The way I see it, an editorial should be incendiary. As a commentator, nothing bothers me more than reading an "opinion"piece that doesn't produce any effect upon me. What's the point of writing about something everyone agrees on?

Okay, enough babble. I'll let the reader judge for himself.

“Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies on Earth. Today, there are 122,” noted President George W. Bush. It may seem strange to say, but Bush is actually a Democrat; not in the sense that he belongs to that particular party, but in an altogether older and more genuine sense of the word. He firmly believes in the good of democracy. Churchill famously intoned that “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have thus been tried.” Bush's stance is much stronger: the march of democracy brings freedom.

Yet freedom, in modern parlance, means the ability to do whatever one wishes. Without getting hung up on semantical considerations, the freedom to commit sin is not to be sought; the only freedom which should concern the Christian is that which leads one closer to Christ including the freedom to worship him and follow his law. In light of recent events in the democratic world—from the election of Hamas in Palestine, to the fretful state of affairs for Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan—it is good to examine the purported link between democracy and the Christian conception of freedom.

As G.K. Chesterton notes, “Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes.” Stepping back to the Enlightenment, we immediately find evidence of a crowd which cherished democracy. An enlightened fellow named Thomas Paine was a more sincere Democrat—in the classic sense—than even President Bush. Despite his slighting in the history books, his writings provided much of the inspiration for the American Revolution.

In Common Sense, Paine speaks none to kindly of kings: “It is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion.” Paine observed that kings were corrupt, which was assuredly true. He then postulated that since a kings were corrupt, it would be much better if the people were given a share in the rule. This is again true, in the sense that if a king was truly corrupt, it would be very surprising if the people could not manage to do a better job than the dethroned monarch.

But only for a time. History has shown that just as a king may behave beastly, so too may the people or their respected representatives. There is a tendency for leaders to corrupt, but it is irrelevant whether they are kingly or simply human. Adam and Eve had no political affiliation of which I am aware, and yet they still managed to get expelled from the garden. This is all nothing more than an application the Church's doctrine of original sin.

A simple sampling of history will show a surprising tendency among democratic regimes to collapse. Surprising, perhaps, to the devout Democrat, but certainly not to the convicted Catholic. This all seems to bode very poorly for democracy, but my final and most important point is this: no system of government will always protect liberty. A particular system of government must be weighed according to its manifestations, and whether or not they conform to Catholic teaching; as Christ put it, “By their fruits you shall know them.”

It is difficult then, to see why a Christian must be a sincere believer in democracy. Recently, a converted Christian named Abdul Rahman narrowly escaped martyrdom in democratic Afghanistan. One wonders why we should focus on spreading the light of democracy when it is a different Light which makes man free.

The Libertarian Temptation

If I may be so bold, I'd wager I've got things pretty well near figured out. And while twenty years may as yet see me a Marxist, marching with Troutsky, I'm deem the prospect unlikely. I have no aversion to change, but at this juncture I'm content with a blend of Roman Catholicism and a slightly bastardized version of libertarianism for philosophical guidance. It has served me well.

There are advantages to having things figured out. Day in and day out I see things that confirm that I am, in fact, correct, or nearly so, when it comes to most of life's larger questions. To steal a quip from Chesterton: "At least six times during the last few years, I have found myself in a situation in which I should certainly have become a Catholic, if I had not been restrained from that rash step by the fortunate accident that I was one already." Catholic works there, but substituting libertarian, small "l", and things work out just as splendidly, probably even better.

Still, there are times when I feel like the genuinely convicted atheist must. Agnosticism I understand, but atheism seems hasty, even if it is more courageous. I understand questioning the supposed goodness, and even the existence of a higher deity. Where I get hung up is in becoming absolutely sure of something which can never be proven. It probably makes one very proud to have finally whittled away at the conundrum we call existence and concluded, like Nitschke, that God is dead. This lasts for--I'm just guessing here--about five minutes until the sudden realization brings dread and, in all likelihood, an audible profanity. No God. F$@&! Now what?

Nitschke did the sensible thing and went mad. Sartes says that "life begins on the other side of despair." Huh?

The same thing happens to the libertarian now and again, though certainly to a lesser extent. It's amusing to explain just why we are royally dinked. Being the next Roman Empire is exciting, but I reckon it's going to be a big downer, too. Fifty years from now, I get to say, "See, I told you," quite smug-like. And then, in a less sanguine moment, the governmental authorities will escort the masses--or at least jerks like myself--to slave labor camps for a little exercise.

This malaise hits me every so often; at least it keeps my ego in check. I haven't pegged the exact reason for these bouts of, neither depression nor despair, but something akin to a righteous indignation tempered by a slight sadness. I figure my head has a massive queue inside somewhere, and the programmers don't have all the bugs worked out in the archiving process. Every so often the queue fills up and the system crashes.

Anyway, the data entry that caused a overflow error--to pen a metaphor--was this little guy. It's a short story, so I'll just paste it in its entirety.

Drivers in the city of Detroit will have to end their calls, as a cell phone ban has been approved. The Detroit City Council passed a cell phone ban for the city of Detroit on Wednesday. Council voted 8 - 1, with Sheila Cockrel as the only opposing vote. Council members said drivers could still use hands-free phones. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick must also approve the ban.Violators can be ticketed and fined.

Now I realize, in the grand scheme of things, there are much bigger fish to fry. This is just a little sunfish, hardly worth the trouble of dirtying the knife. I think the thing that got me was the lone vote of opposition. Nine men and women, elected, which is to say sanctioned, by the good people of Detroit. Eight of them--eight--see no problem with prohibiting adults from making a call on a cell phone while driving.

Now I realize driving and dialing is probably not a behavior that should be engaged in casually. Some attention is required to multi-task successfully. Certainly there are people who should be prevented from making phone calls while driving, as they shouldn't be allowed to pilot a large and rapidly moving vehicle under any circumstances.

If we play the reduction ad absurdum game, I don't know what will be legal in twenty years. I really don't. Neither owning a cell phone nor living near Detroit, this doesn't effect me. Yet it does. The masses, surrendering yet again a frivolous freedom for the promise of safety, will make it all the more easy for Mother Government to take away liberty again and again until, dash it all, we've no more liberty to give. Of course, if we're safe, who cares. Yes, this is the actual defense, and no, I can't explain it.

The frivolous freedoms are the ones really worth fighting for. A man who lights up a cigarette and urinates on his back lawn knows who the earth belongs to, and no, the answer is not Uncle Sam. I don't know if talking on the cell phone while driving is likewise liberating, but I do know that handing over freedom squelches the spirit and eats at the soul.

Enjoy things while you can, I guess.

Pit Responsibly

Though instrumental in the doing of the laundry, the washing of the dishes, and the making of a good apple pie, and integral in the birthing of children, nothing ruins a good mosh pit like a woman. There are a handful of ladies who are more than, shall we say, equipped, to pit with the boys, but such outliers are, by definition, rare. I am compelled to assert, in what I can only refer to as Jackson's Law of Mosh Pits, that: "The quality of a mosh pit is inversely proportional to the percentage of fourteen-year-old girls in said pit." Feel free to use this in geometric proofs as deemed necessary.

Now—the curious reader may be asking—what on earth does moshing have to do with anything? Allow me to explain.

When I—you, anybody—go to a concert, I—you, anybody—commonly look around at the crowd. One can tell a lot about a show from the crowd, even if looks may deceive. For example, if there are a lot of stale old codger punks, still touting the travesty known as the mohawk, thirty plus, and usually closer to forty, wearing Dead Kennedy's shirts—and you know they saw Biafra live—the bitterness factor may be a tad high. Angry punks pit hard. Conversely, if the crowd contains any number of girls who would look attractive if they were five years older and didn't look nearly identical, all five foot nothing, one hundred and two pounds, the pit is going to be somewhat less fierce.

Customary as the 1-2-3-4 followed by the power chord, after the first song, girls come streaming out—usually in pairs, the hesitant one angrily leading the way while the girl who actually wanted to get in the thick of things is re-evaluating her judgment. Sometimes the poor things are wearing sandals. They'll learn. Some places aren't meant for little girls, and while no one would begrudge women the right to pit, common sense notes that the experience may be decidedly unpleasant.

Whatever else we're teaching in school these days, risk management does not appear to be a part of the curriculum. The moment when the young saps carefully place the condom on the cucumber seems as good a place as any to explain that actions, all actions, have consequences. Risky behavior is to be engaged in only after careful scrutiny; pitting, though certainly almost benign in comparison to many other activities, demonstrates this truth. If you don't want to be badgered about, find a nice spot to stand in the periphery to playfully nod your head and tap your toes in tune to the music.

This isn't any harder to understand than mastering the technique of putting the condom on the cucumber. I can't figure out whether, as yesterday's survey suggested, the masses are absolutely senseless, or if this is merely indicative of the cultural abdication of responsibility. My hunch is we're both stupid and irresponsible.

Now for the unpleasant application: women, don't get mad when you are "raped" after getting belligerently drunk and going home with a guy you just met; men, don't get mad when the woman you thought you had consensual sex with later claims date rape out of embarrassment the morning after.

Too harsh? Is this not analogous to moshing? Bad things will happen, and just as one increase one’s chances of taking an elbow to the eye by entering a pit, so does one increase the likelihood of sexual assault—or false charges thereof—by placing oneself in an environment conducive to sexual indiscretions. No one deserves to be raped, and no one deserves to be accused of a crime they didn't commit. But mankind is dark, and people do evil and despicable things. We might reduce the incidence of crimes by a little common sense.

The girls who scurry from the pit learn their lesson quickly, and with little ill effect. With rape, the stakes are much higher, and the damage more permanent and far more terrible. These women might learn something as well, but it would be better if the lesson need not be experienced first hand. The stove may be hot, but it is unwise to place one's hand on the burner to determine whether this be so. Thinking things through instead, it turns out, provides tangible benefits.

Still Incomplete

As if on cue:

Young Americans know little about world geography, with the majority unable to locate Iraq on a map and three quarters unable to find Indonesia, according to a study.

The Roper poll conducted on behalf of National Geographic found that most of the young adults questioned between the ages of 18 and 24 also had little knowledge about their own country, with half or fewer unable to identify the states of New York or Ohio on a map.

New York and Ohio are relatively big states. I might have let ignorance as to the exact whereabouts of Vermont slide, but New York? That's a freebie. Oh, and the "young Americans" the story refers to are between the ages of 18 and 24. If you can't find your butt with both hands at 24 you're never going to develop into a mature and intelligent human being. Let me escort you to the nearest Wal-Mart, where you will be gainfully employed.

China fared better than most countries, with seven in ten (69%) respondents able to find it on a map. Still, the study found, young Americans have a number of misconceptions about China.

Nearly 75 percent believe English is the most widely spoken native language, rather than Mandarin Chinese, and half think that China is the biggest exporter of goods and services rather than the United States.

There goes any chance of a revival defending economic protectionism. The trade deficit is hurting the country with slave labor. Right. And while I should probably applaud the straggling twenty percent who hopped off the clueless train at the last stop--or perhaps only stabbed correctly in the dark--this still leaves three out of ten people who can't locate the most populous country on the planet earth. Hint for the thirty percent: Earth is where we all live.

Two queries: Does anyone still harbor any doubts as to the efficacy of the public school system? Does anyone actually think universal suffrage is a good idea?

I'll say it. I'm much more intelligent and informed than the average voter. I don't want someone who can't find Iraq on a map helping decide whether or not we go to war with them. If you don't know where the country is you sure as heck don't have a clue about the people who live in the country. Trade policy is decided by traitorous politicians, sanctioned by Jill and Joe Six Pack, who, together, couldn't find their way home from Quebec, let alone formulate a cogent opinion on the topic of out-sourcing.

Democracy is self-defeating. I want a king.

Education: Incomplete

I am slowly making my way through an abridged version of The Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire. The complete version costs seventy bucks and boasts one million and a half words. Some day...

I must confess a relative ignorance of history specifically in respect to events which did not directly affect the United States, save for certain tidbits I have picked up here and there along my "educational” journey. The purchase of Gibbon's classic was aimed at lessening this ignorance.

It is rare that in regards to any one issue, one's experience is a genuinely tabula rossa, and though my slate was peppered by a few well known facts—the Romans lived in Rome, which is in Italy, etc.—the undertaking promised the chance to surprise as well as enlighten. Thus, it was intriguing—to me—that the early church factored so prominently in Gibbon's survey. This shouldn't actually be surprising. It is impossible to understand the history of the western world without being at least nominally aware of the basics of Christianity. The most obvious evidence seems to be the calendar, which is marked from the birth of Christ.

As an aside, my "Catholic" high school divided time into the epochs, not of B.C. and A.D. as every westerner, Christian or not, has for—if I recall Gibbon correctly—the past fifteen centuries. Instead, in their zeal for the Gospel, the time before Christ's birth was referred to as B.C.E., Before Common Era, and the period after, naturally enough, as C.E., or Common Era. You get two guesses as to my answer when they start calling to request that I make a donation—and the first one doesn't count.

Yet while my "Catholic" education ignored Christ, Gibbon's masterpiece did not. Though he converted to Catholicism at a young age, he later reverted to Protestantism, and it is fair to say that he possessed the skepticism of organized religion which typified the Age of Reason which was to follow shortly. Yet Gibbon was a legitimate historian, and he didn't simply ignore the rock of Rome because it didn't mesh with his personal beliefs. Indeed, some years later, Cardinal Newman would note, "It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon."

My one complaint thus far with Gibbon is his negative view of the Church which he rejected and I follow. Yet minds should be free to disagree, even when the minds in question differ so greatly in greatness. I have much less of a problem with Gibbon's interpretation of the Church and Christianity than I do with my alma mater's attempt to ignore the impact Christ had on human history and, worse still, the treatment the topic receives within the American public educational system.

The phrase, "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution, but even if it did, that is no reason to avoid discussing Christianity within the schools. A high school education should equip one with the ability to read, write, do basic arithmetic, as well as provide a fairly extensive knowledge of a general survey of important topics. Ignoring Christianity provides an immense disservice to the pupils, and even supposing that the students could in fact read, write and perform basic calculations upon graduation from high school, this oversight alone gives impetus for Christian parents to instruct, at least partially, from the home. The inability of educators to, in fact, educate, leads further credibility to the notion of home-schooling, and the less than surprising lack of morals one finds among one's peers should suffice to tip the scales.

The typical school administrator will excuse this obvious error by pointing out that they are refusing to take a side on such a contentious issue. This is a non sequitur. By pleading no contest they are in fact taking a side, and while their pusillanimous behavior can be forgiven since a genuine stand would draw the ire of the ACLU and the courts, forgiveness does not apply toleration for a wrong that will continue in perpetuity. If Christian parents wish their child to share the Faith, they are foolish to hide the proverbial candle under a bushel basket and hope for the best.

A mature and convicted Christian can and should spend some time with the pagans. Where would Dante be without Virgil? There is much truth contained in pagan literature, and it is unwise to toss aside Gibbon's monumental achievement merely because he didn't have a personal relationship in Christ. Yet we must know Truth before we can recognize it in other sources. An education which precludes the Way, the Truth, and the Life will render the detection of truth difficult, if not impossible.

Thus sounds the last nail in the coffin of the public school system.

All Ye Who Dare Oppose Tyranny, Stay Home

The important thing about progress is the point upon which we are supposedly converging. This point must be defined and it must offer a genuine improvement over the current predicament. To a conservative then, progress in the political realm would mean a growth in, or at least the preservation of civil liberties, coupled with a decrease in the size as well as the invasiveness of the governmental authorities. These aspects of the federal government satisfy the second part of the definition on the point of progress, and the first element is satisfied by the partial achievement of these qualities.

The degree of progress is irrelevant. So long as we march east, however slowly, we shall reach the coast at some point. The direction is most important; marching west will find us arriving at an altogether different coast. Thus, a conservative president can be tolerated, and even supported so long as he marches, even if he merely shuffles, along the right path. It may be frustrating to have to crawl so conservatively, but with patience, our progeny will see the completion of our attempts at progress.

However, so long as a politician, ostensibly conservative or no, refuses to guard essential liberty, increases the size and span of the federal government, he cannot be supported. It is impossible to insist that Bush has governed like a conservative. Yes, he has cut taxes, but the limitation of funds for the monolithic beast in Washington has done nothing to curb her appetite, and indeed, Bush continues to feed her on a money supply that continues to dwindle in purchasing power.

An infinite sequence of presidents in the mold of George W. Bush will see us no longer a republic, but a totalitarian realm. Kerry may have taken us down this road more quickly—though it is difficult to see how—but it matters not whether we take the city bus or pedal on bicycles on our merry way to Hell.

It it his good fortune that he is a lame duck, for it is highly unlikely the public could stomach, let alone sanction, six more years the leadership of the former Texas governor. Yet Congress is not bridled by term limits, and the entirety of the House, as well as a third of the Senate is up for re-elections as is customary. It is unfortunate that the impending dread at having to face the electorate, which our representative must surely feel, has been unable to spur them to adopt the term limits which their predecessors so happily imposed on the head of the Executive branch.

Yet living, as we do, within a republic, at least for the time being, we have the opportunity to impose de facto, if not de jure, term limits upon our laudable representatives. It is, perhaps, tempting to engage in what is often referred to as a civic duty. It is with a heavy heart then, that I implore the reader to stay home come November.

As we have previously touched upon, the federal government continues to grow. Bush has been fairly blamed, but responsibility, or rather, irresponsibility, extends to the Republican controlled Congress as well, which has declared itself a willing accomplice in Bush's crusade to destroy whatever victories conservatism has won in recent years. By sanctioning those who govern as enemies of conservatism, Congress has shown herself unworthy of our votes.

It is curious to note that, while many Americans share my resentment for Congress, most hold no ill will towards their own representatives who is, quite obviously not part of the problem. As this behavior is exemplified in each and every state, to quote Tolkien, they were all of them, deceived. It is possible that the number of good representatives could fit into a geo metro, but it is unlikely that they could fill even a mid-sized SUV. Unless your man answers to "Tancredo", he doesn't deserve a single vote.

The common reply to this insistence against voting is that, "You have to vote. It's your right." As it is also the "right" of women to procure abortions, this reply is utterly illogical. A right to own slaves, say, is not a right one should be proud in exercising. Likewise, so long as the right to vote will only result in the sanction of varying shades of evil, it cannot be engaged in by the moral soul.

Another common, and equally preposterous, conjecture is that "If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain." Although Badnarick was probably thankful for my vote, I would have done just as well to have written in Mickey Mouse--or stayed home. It is asinine to suppose that my right to complain is tied to making a false choice. It is akin to telling a condemned man, that because he was reluctant to designate the mode of his death, he has no right to be resentful that he must indeed die.

The last rebuttal is that staying home doesn't accomplish anything. Aside from the obvious benefit the hours not spent standing in line may give, there is a more permanent and lasting effect. A free conscience is a worthy prize, and one that cannot be gained by participating in the circus known as the general election. Further, the Christian believes that he must answer to God at the final judgment. It is unlikely that Christ will take to task the man for not stopping the inevitable. The world, after all, belongs, not to Jesus, but to the Prince of Darkness, and the passing away of the American Republic, though regrettable, is also firmly within the confines of the Divine Will. While we will be, most of us, given passes on the issue of this latest great decline, we will be asked whether we aided those who would do evil upon the earth. High taxes and an overbearing government are one thing, but the inability to do anything to stop—and indeed, the apathy towards—the atrocity of abortion by supposed conservative Christians in Washington must weigh heavily upon the good Christian soul.

When the Good Lord comes to separate the sheep and the goats, will a vote for a lesser evil be something to be proud of, or will it be something that causes one to hang one's head in shame? To whom will Christ say, "Depart from me ye accursed." and to whom will he turn to welcome joyfully into the Kingdom of God?

It is not my place to answer, but it would be wise to mull this over before Election Day. It is easy to decide whom to vote for if one must vote; it is more difficult to decide whether we are to vote at all.