Nobody's Business

Aha, Agoraphilia

Glen Whitman of Agoraphilia, with whom I've been guestblogging over at The Agitator, only needs a handful of words to get to the heart of something I've never quite been able to express. Not as clearly, anyway. Liberals, he observes, typically fight one brand of nannyism but are blind to a no less dangerous and insidious kind. This is the mindset:

A government that coerces its citizens for their moral well-being is bad; but a government that coerces its citizens for their own physical and mental health is good. 

In other words, when the government curbs your freedom of speech, or your right to freedom from religion, most liberals will bristle and protest. But when the government interferes with your choice to ingest what you want, ("you can't have that, it's bad for you") — even if you don't hurt anyone but, at worst, yourself — well, not a peep out of Hillary Clinton and her ilk. They frequently don't just look the other way; they happily turn into fuddy-duddying nannies themselves. That's my number-one reason for having left liberalism behind once and for all.

I also like Glen's most recent post about gay marriage. He writes:

The reason we should care -- and the reason gay-marriage advocates do care -- about gay marriage is that we support freedom of association, freedom of contract, and self-ownership. But if these claims provide the basis for gay marriage, they provide a strong argument for polygamy as well -- so long as it is practiced voluntarily by all parties involved. Outlawing polygamy means interfering with people’s ability to intimately associate with whomever they wish on terms they find mutually agreeable. So the right-wing slippery slope argument makes a good deal of sense. But it’s a slippery slope toward freedom, the kind we should jump on with a toboggan.

Glen's argument acquires new meaning given the news of the three Dutch people who signed a mutual civil union contract the other day. 

Wedlock Is Nigh, My Love?

The Dutch participants in a happy menage à trois signed a cohabitation agreement the other day and had it notarized, sending headlines around the world that the Dutch have legalized polygamous marriage. Not true, but why get in the way of a good story?

The usual defenders of wedlock-related righteousness are in a right tizzy. The first and seemingly best counter-argument put forth at freerepublic is that the 'groom' is "bald and ugly as a frog," while his 'brides' are "pig-snouted." Well, touché.

Anyway, I wonder whether the Dutch will trade in their Heineken for some delicious Polygamy Porter (slogan: 'Why Have Just One?"). Billboards for the beverage were banned in Utah, but should now find a loving home across the pond.

[hat tip: Phil Nelson]

Foreign Policy: Wow 'Em With Untruths

Karen Hughes, the administration's latest goodwill ambassador, as quoted in Salon:

"Many people around the world do not understand the important role that faith plays in Americans' lives," she said. When an Egyptian opposition leader inquired why President Bush mentions God in his speeches, she asked him "whether he was aware that previous American presidents have also cited God, and that our Constitution cites 'one nation under God.' He said, 'Well, never mind.'"

• Fact one: The phrase is not actually in the Constitution, anywhere.
• Fact two: The framers took great care to exclude such language.
• Fact three: "One nation under God" is part of the pledge of allegiance.
• Fact four: The 'under God' part wasn't added until 1954, by a Cold-War-obsessed Congress seeking to underline America's moral superiority.
• Fact five: The extra two words go against the intent of the man who wrote the pledge, Francis Bellamy.
• Fact six: The addition "under God" violates the spirit of the pledge; few things could be more divisive than — in a pledge about what unites us — bringing up religion.

But, you know, "never mind."

Move Over, Judge Judy, Judge Lauri's Here

The Associated Press:

A state district judge has ordered a 17-year-old drug offender barred from sex as a condition of her probation. Judge Lauri Blake made the ruling that bars the girl from having sex as long as she is living with her parents and attending school.

Is solo sex verboten too, and if so, who's doing the enforcing? Hey, I know, why not slap one of these on her? Or force here to wear this wondrous invention?

It is one of several unorthodox rulings Blake has imposed since she was elected 10 months ago in the 336th District Court covering Fannin and Grayson counties. She has also prohibited tattoos, body piercings, earrings and clothing "associated with the drug culture" for those on probation.

Brilliant. Just outlaw earrings and other body piercings, and the area's crime numbers are sure to crash. Who knew it could be so simple?

Hockney Sounds Smoke Alarm

British artist David Hockney likes to smoke a cigarette now and then, which makes him an anti-social menace in the eyes of a government intent on eradicating smoking in public places. He got furious at Labour MP and tobacco nanny Julie Morgan the other day. Hockney told her:

"Death awaits you whether you smoke or not. Pubs are not health clubs. People go to drown their sorrows. We could save a lot more lives if we refuse to serve alcohol, you could argue. This is ridiculous. It's bossy. Why must every place be suitable for you? Can't there be some place suitable for me?" 

He has the public on his side. Fewer than one in three Brits — 31 procent — support Labour's wholesale ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. Most people in the U.K. want everyone to be able to choose between smoking and non-smoking facilities.

Imagine that: Freedom of choice. What a lovely, liberating concept. Too bad the members of Tony Blair's posse would like to put their bootprints all over it.

My Faith Saved Me. That, and My Crystal Meth.

Remember the neat tearjerker that unfolded in Georgia back in March? A young Christian woman held hostage by a crazed killer sat him down and made him some pancakes (with real butter); then, inspired by The Purpose-Driven Life, she persuaded her attacker to let God into his life. He surrendered — first to the Almighty's love, then to the police.

Even secular media went to town with that narrative, days of saturation coverage culminating in a hagiographic Wall Street Journal column that opined

Ashley Smith is a national hero — a brave, resourceful single mother who has suffered in her life, and who at a series of pivotal moments did the right thing and the kind thing and helped a killer end a killing spree. Country songs will be written about her. She's going to enter our folk lore. ... Is it a matter of happenstance, is it without meaning, that America was taken by this drama at Eastertide, in the days before Palm Sunday, when a wanted man rode by donkey to an appointment at Golgotha?

All right, chill already. Turns out that God had a little competition from Ms. Smith's stash of crystal meth. According to a minty-fresh AP story,

Ashley Smith, the woman who says she persuaded suspected courthouse gunman Brian Nichols to release her by talking about her faith, discloses in a new book that she gave him methamphetamine during the hostage ordeal. ... She says he asked for marijuana, but she did not have any, and she dug into her illegal stash of crystal meth instead.

The authorities won't charge her with possession and that's dandy with me. But I wonder: Would she also have avoided prosecution if she hadn't so expertly played the religion card — if she'd hadn't infused her tale with lots of Jesusy goodness, and had instead been your average profane, non-devout junkie? Just asking.

Pee is for Prague

Though I grew up not very far from Brussels' famed statue of a little peeing boy, I have to confess that for some reason, I don't think about urinating males all that often. Oh sure, I was perfectly happy to write about the Whizzinator half a year ago, a fake penis dispensing guaranteed drug-free urine. But on the whole, guys taking a leak is not a topic that commands my frequent attention.

Today, however, I find myself consumed by it. And it's all the fault of a Czech sculptor who created a piece of public art featuring two animatronic males who move their hips and their penises (penii?) to write messages with their simulated pee, a.k.a. water. Wait, it gets better: you can send a text message to a phone number inscribed at the sculpture's base, and the two bronze figures will faithfully copy your every word.

Be sure to click on the Flash movies of the sculpture in action. It's strangely hypnotic to watch, though perhaps not safe for work.

Why do the Europeans always get to have all the open-air bathroom fun? I'm actually half-serious here. For piss' sakes, why do we as Americans get stuck on squirmingly discussing, ad infinitum, the merit in the work of Andres Serrano, Robert Mapplethorpe, and Chris Ofili, while on yonder shore art is allowed to be its shocking, silly, profound, or lighthearted self?

Further fuel for that thought is here, in a recent news report about an arguably less frivolous public statue: an 11-foot iteration of a very pregnant, very naked, and very handicapped British woman, Alison Lapper. The sculpture is placed prominently on London's Trafalgar Square.

Can you imagine either of these works on the Washington Mall, or even in Central Park? To ask the question is to answer it. So here's a more open-ended one: Are we in any sense of the word a better country for firmly saying no to such, you know, degenerate art?

[hat tip: BoingBoing]

March Or We'll Arrest You

So Cindy Sheehan got what she wanted — arrested. I have little sympathy remaining for Ms. Sheehan, who (like the President, by the way) strikes me as a simplistic one-note bore.

But isn't there something a bit disturbing about being arrested for sitting because one's permit was strictly a license to march?

The fact that a permit to protest is even necessary is a bit Orwellian, something we might associate with China or Cuba. Then again, just think back to the Democratic Convention in Boston last year, where protesters were required to demonstrate in pens set up for the purpose. "Free-speech zones," the organizers called those holding areas (see pic). And here I was thinking that all of the United States is a free-speech zone.

Remind me what happened to the right of the people peaceably to assemble?

A pretty good, dispassionate take on free-speech zones (Boston 2004 wasn't the first time, nor the last) is here. If you'd rather be reading the funnies, go here.

Racism Everywhere You Look

A columnist for a conservative Vassar campus magazine finds herself in hot water after criticizing minority and gay students for withdrawing into their own cliques and cultural centers. She accused the groups of "voluntarily confining themselves to ghettoes."

The writer's crime? Her use of the word ghettoes. It's highly offensive, or so outraged Vassar students charged — and the paper's editor, apparently lacking any evidence of a spine, promptly apologized. Never mind that one meaning of 'ghetto' has long been 'an isolated group,' or the area where such a group can be found. The word, in the context, was used to perfection. The real reason for the protest seems obvious: it's not so much the term itself that caused the brouhaha, as the unbearable thought that someone at Vassar would dare write anything but glowing (and ultimately patronizing) prose about minorities.

The briefest of thought experiments bears this out. Pretend for a second that the columnist had written passionately about how blacks and gays are being ghettoized (instead of deliberately ghettoizing themselves). Twenty bucks says such an article would have received nods and plaudits from the same people who angrily demanded a retraction and an apology.

Crying racism has a long, tired history at Vassar. How about this one, from some fifteen years ago:

A student newspaper funded by Vassar College termed black activist Anthony Grate, 'hypocrite of the month' for espousing anti-Semitic views while publicly denouncing bigotry on campus. In an acrimonious debate, Grate reportedly referred to 'dirty Jews' and added, 'I hate Jews.' Grate later apologized for his remarks. Meanwhile, outraged that the [campus paper] had dared to criticize a black person, the Vassar Student Association first attempted to ban the issue of the publication, and when that failed it withdrew its $3,800 funding. The newspaper 'unnecessarily jeopardizes an educational community based on mutual understanding,' the VSA explained.

But of course, it's hardly just Vassar, or even just academia. Whoever coined the phrase "Seek and you shall find" might have been talking about evidence of racism. Remember the firing of a Washington D.C. mayoral aide because he'd used the word niggardly? And the recent case of the Indiana official who came under fire from the NAACP because his term 'city mentality' was deemed an example of racial bigotry?

In his book Paved With Good Intentions, Jared Taylor writes:

It is widely assumed that if the struggle against racism is not maintained at fever pitch, white people will promptly relapse into bigotry. Thus a great deal of the criticism of whites is justified on the grounds that it will forestall potential racism... The process becomes circular. Since whites are thought likely to turn racist if not constantly policed, it is legitimate to denounce acts of racism they might commit as if they had already done so. 

For lots of examples, Paul Trout's very good if depressing roundup of campus correctness is here.

Screaming From the Rafters?

Rob D. at That's Ridonkulous sent me a thoughtful e-mail the other day (it's also up as a post on his site) that forced me to think about if and how libertarian writers can make a difference. I'm presenting the exchange here in the hope that other people will jump in with some ideas of their own. I've edited Rob's questions for brevity (perhaps I should have done the same with my answers!), but you now know where to find the original.

• Do we continue to try and function with all these numerous libertarian organizations and separate efforts, or do we suck it up and realize that the Libertarian Party can be the party we make of it? When do we stop running from frustration from lack of success?

I think you have me pegged as a political party animal. Truth is, though I feel more kinship with the Libertarian Party than I do with the Republicans or the Democrats, I'm too much of an independent to really embrace anyone's party platform. I suspect that the LP's natural base consists disproportionally of people who are comfortable with shades of gray and like to think for themselves.

So, although there are millions of us, we remain, to a large extent, invisible, because independents tend not to be joiners. At best, we get behind one or more issues — drug policy reform, gay marriage, free-speech rights, take your pick. But actually embracing a party program implies living by a set of principles and rules laid out by others, and that's anathema to the independent mind.

For instance, I have some pretty serious doubts about what the Second Amendment means, and I support limited, sensible forms of gun control. The Libertarian Party is pretty gung-ho on all kinds of gun rights, and though I could hold my nose and pretend that there's no meaningful disagreement there, I'd simply have a hard time signing on to the full-bore ideology.

Also, I don't think that libertarians — of my stripe, anyway — tolerate authority all that well. So attempting to corral scores of label-abhorring freethinkers into a big tent, GOP-style, just may be an exercise in futility.

This, as you know, is the Republican Party's unbelievable strength: that all its constituent parts, from the Log Cabin guys to the wingnuts who think Strom Thurmond was a dangerous pinko, display a maniacal adherence to a core message. There's very little dissent evident. It's creepy, but it works. The libertarian mindset can't muster that kind of almost mindless loyalty. That, it seems to me, is our collective Achilles heel, at least in terms of attaining real political power.

• I don’t think any libertarian today would disagree that a strong Libertarian Party would be to the benefit of all libertarians and our respective think tanks and organizations. Bob Barr, a former staunch Republican, threw his support behind Badnarik in 2004. What would happen if we all followed suit? 

I don't know who 'we' is. I'm not a Republican. Obviously, I'd love for individual Republicans to either return to their now-abandoned core principles of maximum personal freedom and limited government; or to leave their sorry excuse for a party and set up as independents. Won't happen, but it's nice to dream about.

Look, on the voter side, the apathy in this country is enormous. Half of all voting-age Americans don't care about politics, and I don't even blame them; there's a reason why there are no guided tours of sausage factories. Most of the people who do care believe — not without justification — that we have a binary political system: you can only vote one of two ways and expect to make a difference. Those are some huge hurdles.

But I'm not all gloom and doom. Let me toss out some "reasons to be cheerful," to quote the late, great Ian Dury.

- We can buy 46 flavors of ice cream in our local supermarket and 74 different breakfast cereals. Why are our far more important political choices usually limited to only two supposedly viable options? Even non-libertarians are beginning to ask that question.
- The partisanship has risen to absurd, never-before-seen levels of late. I think people are getting sick of that. They may be looking for a third way.
- The silver lining in the Supreme Court's Kelo decision is that it caused mass outrage (and rightly so); I hope we'll be able to marshall some of that for the libertarian cause.
- I'd wager that the near-criminal ineptitude of the government in the aftermath of Katrina opened lots of people's eyes. The authorities are too busy deflecting blame and defending their porkbarrel outrages to actually come rescue you if you're standing up to your lips in toxic sludge. We'll have to wait and see if the lesson sinks in, but the moral of the story seems pretty obvious to me.
- I see our collective cause being nudged forward further by the recent addition of John Tierney to the New York Times' Op-Ed roster. This is clearly not on the scale of my previous points, but the Times is an important paper whether we like it or not, and Tierney's columns are sure to be influential.

• Is writing, blogging, and screaming from the rafters all we could hope for? Do we look tirelessly for a libertarian celebrity that could circumvent the inevitable MSM blackout?

Depends on the celebrity, I guess. I'm not hopeful when I look at how well that's worked for the political mastery of people like Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger. They consider themselves strongmen, but they're pretty weak leaders when it comes right down to it. If you're talking about a celebrity who's not necessarily a candidate but could publicly 'support the cause,' I'm equally skeptical. Does anybody listen to Rosie O'Donnell when she sounds off on gay marriage? Has anyone who wasn't already sympathetic to drug reform ever been convinced by Woody Harrelson's thoughts on pot legalization?

Perhaps what you and I do is equally limited in effect (now there's a sobering thought). But for me, it's congenital. I can't see free-speech infringements and hold my tongue, or allow our nation's politicians and bureaucrats to think of themselves as anything but the people's servants. I don't know if my writing, by itself, does any good at all. But frankly, I see utility in pushing back if enough of us do it.

One ant can't do much. An army of ants can move rocks — even without a party program.