No Column This Wewk

In lieu of my column discussing the necessity of religion and science The Lode has printed her usual garbage. Look for the aforesaid essay to appear in the next week's edition, that is, some time mid-Janurary.

My break draws short. I know not whether I shall post at all, or how frequently; but know that eventually I shall be back.

Bonne chance mes amis!

The Smoking Ban

...is coming to my state:

A statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants looks likelier than ever.

For several years the biggest obstacle to the ban has been the Republican majority in the state House of Representatives, which was swayed by the concerns of restaurant and bar owners who said the ban would hurt their business. With Democrats set to take control of the House in January, supporters believe their time has come.

For which I'm to blame, as the good Fraters point out:

And yet, the smarter-than-thou libertarians will continue to assure you that there is no difference between the two parties.

The mistake here lies in assuming that Republicans could have prevented a statewide smoking ban. True, they would have stood up to it for a limited period of time, but eventually Republicans would have lost power, whereupon the liberty-loathing Democrats would have banned smoking anyway.

As I mentioned in last week's column, there's not point to sliding gradually into tyranny. Conservatism is a failed idealogy, and the smoking ban is a perfect example of this.

I'll be lighting up my pipe this weekend in honor of the home state slipping into sheer idiocy. Since most of the bars I go to don't allow smoking and most bars frown upon pipe smoking, this won't affect me much, but it bothers my libertarian bones.

For the record, there is no difference between the two parties and I am smarter than you. So there.

Not Just Bush

The Democrats are fairly stupid, too:

Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam -- Sunni or Shiite -- Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly -- probably Shiite."

That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

But remember, Democrats are Tough on Terror. And we're going to defeat Terror. And so on and so forth...

Nominate The Diversity

and watch the democrats wiggle...

Zalmay Khalilzad, who was announced this week as leaving as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is the leading prospect to replace John Bolton as envoy to the United Nations.

President Bush was reported by aides as looking for someone who approximates Bolton's combination of toughness and diplomatic skill and has tentatively decided on Khalilzad. A native of Afghanistan, he has served in government posts dating back to 1985 and is the highest-ranking Muslim in the Bush administration.

I can't say I'm terribly happy to see Bolton go; he just never irked me as much as many of Bush's other appointments. If we insist on remaining a part of the UN, our ambassador thereto should have our interests in mind. My objection is to Bush's policy, which is inimical to our own well-being, but I would never fault him for finding someone to promulgate that policy to that hallowd hall of international stooges.

If Bush does nominate this Muslim chap, and assuming he's similar in type to John Bolton, it will be fascinating to watch the democrats turn him out without appearing as intolerant racists or some such twaddle. Personally, I don't care about the diversity inherent in his nature, at least as we measure such in this strange country of ours; if he is turned out it should be due to his attributes, or lack thereof. I only note that the liberals in the Senate may become squeamish shortly, as they are hit, again, with the full weight of their own bankrupt principles.

Also, assuming this goes through, what are the odds Bush gets credit for nominating the first Muslim--I'm assuming--to hold this position? I'm guessing slim to none.

Nasal Spray for Those of Great Weight

For the big-boned:

Compellis Pharmaceuticals of Boston said it has been issued an initial patent for a nasal spray that aims to treat obesity by blocking the senses of smell and taste.

"It seems so simple - blocking the sense of smell and taste," company chief executive Chris Adams wrote in an e-mail. "But it has never been used to treat obesity, and it really does work. Our bodies do not crave what we cannot smell or taste."

I've a novel idea. If one were to, hypothetically understand, eat healthy and exercise, if one's calorie intake was less than the calories one burns, one wouldn't be so fat. In fact, one would begin to lose weight.

How many other preposterous schemes must we invent before we admit that, painful as it may be, the only way to lose weight and keep it off is that darned old-fashioned method. Self-discipline isn't exactly fun, but it does work.

The Market Still Works

I found this unusual ray of light this morning:

McDonald's is closing its outlet in a town known for quality food and healthy, local produce.

The fast food chain in Tavistock, Devon, simply wasn't being used enough by locals.

So after seven years struggling to make ends meet in a town that has won many accolades for the quality of its food, McDonald's will finally shut up shop on Saturday.

Yes, this is across the pond, but the market doesn't boast allegiance with any particular country. And yes, the government was involved insofar as limitations on school lunches have allegedly led to the closing of the aforesaid McDonald's.

Yet I'm still counting it as a "good thing". Instead of complaining about the crummy and unhealthy food sold at McDonald's, people simply stopped patronizing the establishment. Lo and behold, a business which couldn't make money folded; the prospect of providing burgers out of the goodness of their capitalistic little hearts was insufficient impetus to take a hit on the bottom line.

I wonder if something like this would work instead of those infernal smoking bans? I reckon it would.

State Invasiveness, Marching Ever Onward

Another Lode article here follows. I have kept the original title, and I've been unable to incorporate any of the changes which my editors made--including, strangely, removing the very last line of the piece.

I don't like editors.

“Puritanism - The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.” H.L. Mencken

Not content to prevent patrons from smoking cigarettes in restaurants and bars, USA Today is reporting that the Texas legislature has decided to ban smoking in “private places such as homes and cars when children are present.”

As usual, permit me several, possibly even related thoughts.

First, the next time someone tells me that “the slippery slope is a logical fallacy” I'm going to scream. Vox Day sums it up nicely: “From vaccines to health bans, from polygamy to proposed invasions, the "slippery slope" argument has never been more reliable as a predictive model... I remember a friend of mine from New York who loved the new smoking ban and laughed at the absurd notion that they would ever lead to food bans. And it wasn't all that long ago that the homogamy crowd was insisting that expanding the state's definition of "marriage" regarding sex was possible without expanding the number of individuals involved.”

Government is inimical to freedom. Democracy is especially so, despite our President's assurances to the contrary. Sadly, most people don't give two cents for liberty, and see no problem in letting it slip right down the drain. That is, so long as we can be safe from... terrorists, second-hand smoke, intolerance, bogeymen, etc. And since democracy pretends that dullards and imbeciles have the foggiest idea about how to run a government, the aforesaid vote for frauds that throw away freedom faster than they break campaign promises. If you don't understand this by now you need to take a closer look at recent history. Put down the TV remote and slowly back away.

Next, the abject failure of parents to insist on the right to raise their children however they choose is coming back to haunt them. It is not the duty of the state to educate the children; that responsibility belongs to the child's mother and father. Hence my ardent support for homeschooling. Indeed, the same principle applies to smoking, or any other unpleasant behavior. If the child doesn't find secondhand smoke to be enjoyable, I suggest he either thank the Good Lord that he doesn't have to live on the street or use his stores of cash to move into a smoke-free environment.

Tangentially, I feel the need to mention the hypocrisy inherent in the legal system. If a woman feels that she doesn't want to carry her child to term—heart-beating, unique DNA fetus, complete with brain-waves and cellular replication—she can head to the local abortion mill to murder the little bastard. But if she decides to have the child and wants to smoke around the kid, well, she can't do that! The poor thing might get asthma or maybe even a case of the low self esteem.

It's not hard to see where this line of “thinking” will lead us. We have established that, insofar as children are concerned, the rights of the state trump the rights of the parents when the health of the children is under attack. We need only wander down the slope to determine what constitutes “health” and an attack thereupon.

I'm somewhat surprised that the government has yet to prevent parents from stuffing their progeny full of twinkies. This is surely worse for their health, and, once the detestable Texas law finds its way into other states, it seems only a matter of time before parents of chubby children will be fined—and probably later imprisoned.

This gradual descent into tyranny is a bit tedious. I say we take the principle to its logical conclusion and mandate that the government raise children from the day they're born. Oh Brave New World!

The Inherent Flaw of Conservatism

Another Lode article here follows:

For as long as I can remember, I've been a conservative—that is, one who
clings to tradition, especially as it pertains to culture and politics.
I've never held change to be bad per se, but neither have I  accepted it
as patently good.  It should only be enacted if absolutely necessary.
One calls to mind Thomas Jefferson's unheeded suggestion that laws be
discussed by the legislature for a full year before being enacted.  While
imperfect, it would have saved us from the Patriot Act, which, like most
of our laws, was passed before being fully read, let alone extensively
deliberated upon.

I'm not exactly sure what drew me to conservatism.  I hesitate to use the
famous, though spurious, Winston Churchill quip: “If you're not a liberal
when you're 25, you have no heart.  If you're not a conservative by the
time you're 35, you have no brain.” because while it accurately notes
that thinking will almost invariably lead to conservatism, it seems to
suggest, I think unfairly, that I haven't a heart.

Something of an eternal pessimist, I never doubted that liberalism had
its merits, but it always seemed extraordinarily foolish to place so much
faith in humanity.   As H.L. Mencken once observed, “It is a sin to
believe in the evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.”  It would be
grand if the government could keep business in line, protect the poor,
and enforce justice.  Unfortunately, it almost never does so.

In short, while liberals may achieve victories, they will never see the
fruition of their plans.  This is actually rather convenient, as the
problems which liberalism has not solved can be solved by... more
liberalism, as in: if only we spent more money on public education,
students wouldn't be illiterate morons, and other nefarious lies.

But conservatism has a flaw which might be even more damning than that of
liberalism.  Quite simply, conservatism does not work.  I do not mean
that minimal taxes and a government which is not wholly invasive is not
desirous, or that it cannot exist.  The Founding Fathers erected a
government which most conservatives still hold to be marvelous.  But that
government no longer exists as such; it has grown to monstrous
proportions, and it was inevitable that it would do so.

Quite simply, the folly of conservatism lies in its defensive nature; it
can mitigate the damage done by the forces of liberalism, but it can
never prevent their longterm success.  In fact, judging from recent
history, mitigate seems far too strong a word.   The forces of
“conservatism” have served to facilitate its demise, as Bush and company
have continued to feed the government behemoth.

I began to realize this some time ago.  It is now painfully obvious to
all but the most imbecilic of men.  In fact, one seldom sees anyone
arguing that the GOP is even vaguely conservative anymore; instead one
hears that we must not surrender in the War on Terror, or that Democrats
will raise our taxes and nominate liberal judges.  All of which serves to
further demonstrate the stupidity of conservatism.

If I was one of the few to realize this in time to vote, futilely, for a
third party candidate rather than to re-elect Bush, I am quite late to
the historical party.  In 1915, G.K. Chesterton wrote a book called
Orthodoxy.  Widely recognized as his best work, and my own personal
favorite, therein he has this to say:  “[A]ll conservatism is based upon
the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But
you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of
change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If
you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it
again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you
want the old white post you must have a new white post.”

Conservatives must reject their defensive strategy if they are ever to
achieve their goals.  In a word, they must cease to be conservatives.

Failure From Narrow Minds

In which Buchanan again enlightens:

The Afghan and Iraqi wars Bush launched never looked more certain to end in U.S. defeats.

What is the cause of the impending collapse of the U.S. position across the Middle East? We put democratist ideology ahead of national interests. We projected our ideas of what is right, true and inevitable onto people who do not share them. We tried to impose our will with our military power, which is more effective at killing Arab enemies than winning Arab hearts.

America is failing in the Middle East because our leaders of both parties will not look at the region through Arab eyes. What Bush saw as a glorious liberation of Iraq, Arabs saw as an invasion. Where Bush sees in Israel a model of democracy, Arabs see a pampered agent of U.S. imperialism, persecuting and dispossessing the Palestinian people.

In my admittedly verly limited memory, never has a critic gotten something so right for which he has been credited so little. The left would, most of them, rather bless Bush than Buchanan, which isn't entirely surprising given the former's ability to govern like a leftist, but it is still a bit frustrating. Could it be that the maligned Mr. B. is more than just a right-wing kook?

This inability to see through another's eyes is one of the great downfalls of humanity, typified most gloriously by our current President. While clearly not brilliant, I have to admit that Bush has never struck me as a complete imbecile. Instead, I find that one of his biggest shortcomings has been his complete inability to comprehend that what he ardently believes in may be foreign to someone else. Especially foreigners.

I've been reading A Mencken Chrestomathy of late. In an essay regarding Teddy Roosevelt, H.L. Mencken notes: "Let the populace begin suddenly to swallow a new panacea or take to a new fright at a new bugaboo, and almost instantly nine-tenths of the masterminds of politics begin to believe that the panacea is a sure-cure for all the malaises of the Republic, and the bugaboo an immediate an unbearable menace to all law, order and domestic tranquility."

Obvious we can see that in our time democracy was treated as panacea and terrorism as the new fright. I don't fault Bush for failing to understand the lone tenth who thinks democracy nothing more than a joke, and terrorism to be just another threat that comes with dangerous existence. Were he to understand from whence we come, he may become one of us, and that would leave him in the unenviable position of trying to convert the rest of the wrong-headed mob.

But I do fault him for ignoring the segment of the population in its entirety, and failing to realize that, if anti-democratic Americans are a bizarre lot, they may be, and in fact are, the norm over in the Middle East. In short, Iraq and Afghanistan are not America. Having failed to realize this very simple fact, we have failed spectacularily.

Since I haven't the slightest faith that we've learned a thing, better luck to us next time.

Oh Thank Goodness for SCOTUS

North to Alaska we tread:

The Supreme Court stepped into a dispute over free speech Friday involving a suspended high school student and his banner that proclaimed "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

The justices agreed to hear the appeal by the Juneau, Alaska, school board and principal Deborah Morse of a lower court ruling that allowed the student's civil rights lawsuit to proceed. The school board hired former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr to argue its case to the high court.

Morse suspended Frederick after he displayed the banner, with its reference to marijuana use, when the Olympic torch passed through Juneau in 2002 on its way to the Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

Boy, I'm really glad we elected Bush. That way he could nominate good judges, presumably Alito and Roberts, who will fight for traditional values. I guess that means no more bong hits for Jesus.

The school board upheld the suspension, and a federal judge initially dismissed Frederick's lawsuit. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said the banner was vague and nonsensical and Frederick's civil rights had been violated.

I'm completely suprised that the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is involved. I hereby propose a new law. Any time that court comes up with a decision it is automatically reversed by the Supreme Court. That way the High Court can concentrate on doing that which the founders intended it to do.

I'm trying to remember what that was exactly.