Monday, August 31, 2026

On Making Things Up

     That’s what writers do.

     As my Gentle Readers know, I write in the speculative genres. (Yes, considering how romances are conducted these days, I consider romance a speculative genre.) Those who read my novels know it going in; Amazon makes it perfectly plain, as do the covers and the promotional blurbs. So the reader should be prepared for a little speculation: i.e., imaginative depiction of how things might be in a different reality, or in the future.

     Some aren’t. At least, that’s the way they express themselves in their reviews.

     Of course, the misguided-review problem isn’t mine alone:

     That unnamed reviewer simply had to express himself or explode. Tragic, eh? I hope he headed off the crisis before detonation. But enough of that.

     Speculative-fiction writers must speculate. They’re required to change something about contemporary / real-world / this universe reality. The specifics of the writer’s speculation are what determine the genre – the “marketing category” (Steven Brust) – into which his book will be thrust, there to beckon silently yet importunately to Amazon doomscrollers forever more.

     It hardly need be said, though in my inimitable fashion I’ll say it anyway, that a reader who dislikes speculation in fiction should browse among the non-speculative genres, and leave the speculative ones for persons of different tastes. But things are as they are. This aspect thereof cannot be easily changed.

     The tweet embedded above caused me to remember an event that brought me some perplexing thoughts. It was early in my auctorial career: the Year of Our Lord 2000, if memory serves. Two persons of whom I had (and have) a high opinion had started a small press. They declared themselves dedicated to the speculative genres. They’d fulsomely complimented two short stories I’d sent them, so I decided to try one of my novels on them: a Christian-speculative tale over which I’d labored hard and of which I was proud.

     (A digression: Those Gentle Readers who casually end sentences with prepositions can’t imagine my agony over the previous sentence. De gustibus non est disputandum, and all that. Digression ends.)

     Well, to cut to the chase, they didn’t like it. “Not orthodox,” came the reply. Their objections focused on the speculative elements in the novel. They bore on matters Catholic doctrine does not address: the possibility of magic and the exact nature of the afterlife.

     Hm. Well, you can’t please everyone, and only a fool would try. But it was a disappointment as well as a surprise. The implication was that the Church has told us everything, and that to go beyond Church doctrine to any extent is unworthy, even if the author takes great care not to contradict an explicit Church teaching.

     That wasn’t the first time a reviewer objected to a speculation in a speculative novel or mine. While I shrug it off when it occurs, it always puzzles me. It makes me want to ask the reviewer: What are you here for?

     But I’m not here to grump about a couple of misguided reviews, nor about the rejection of a novel. This is more of a reflection about accepting things for what they are.

     In The Vision of the Anointed, Thomas Sowell makes a piercing point about the application of standards:

     Many have argued that capitalism does not offer a satisfactory moral message. But that is like saying that calculus does not contain carbohydrates, amino acids, or other essential nutrients. Everything fails by irrelevant standards.

     To judge a thing relevantly, one must judge it by the relevant standard. To apply an irrelevant standard guarantees that it will “fail.” After all, the creator didn’t have that standard in mind when he labored on his creation. Its prescriptions and proscriptions were not on his mind. No reasonable person expects that his shower stall will be equipped to allow him to check his Facebook status as he scrubs.

     And now, having written the last sentence above with glee, I am once more in mind of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Have we entered an age in which everything we own is expected to do everything we ever want? Has that become “reasonable?” Must our refrigerator remind us that it’s time to change the oil in our car? Must our lawnmower remember that we need bread, milk, and to schedule a chat with our financial planner?

     I feel a headache coming on. Perhaps it’s time to lie down for a while. Do have a nice day.

Sunday, August 30, 2026

Crosses And Virtues

     Today’s Gospel reading was from Matthew, chapter 16:

     From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
     Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
     But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
     Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
     For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
     For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

     [Matthew 16:21-27]

     Jesus made that statement about “taking up [your] cross” more than once. There’s been a fair amount of squabbling over what He meant. Today’s Mass celebrant tried to paper it over with a lecture about being ready and willing to help others. That’s that priest’s particular shtick; I come at it from a different angle.

     When I studied Latin many years ago, I came into contact with the school of philosophy called Stoicism:

     Philosophical discourse is paramount in Stoicism, including the view that the mind is in rational dialogue with itself. Stoic ethics centers on virtue as the highest good, cultivating emotional self-control, a calm problem-solving state of mind, and rational judgment to attain lifelong flourishing (eudaimonia). At the same time, passions, anxieties, and insecurities are viewed as misguided reactions that ought to be controlled through self-disciplined practice. Of all the schools of ancient Western philosophy, Stoicism made the greatest claim to being utterly systematic. Central to Stoic ethics was the idea of living in accordance with nature, which meant aligning one's life with one's sense of reason and the rational order of the universe.

     When we speak of a man as stoic, we hearken back to that school of philosophy. We mean he exemplifies the virtues the Stoics valued, beginning with Zeno and flowing thence to Marcus Aurelius:

  • He controls himself.
  • He is not easily disturbed.
  • He does not complain, or parade his sufferings.
  • He strives to put his reason in command of his emotions.
  • He tempers wild impulses, sudden passions, and the onset of worry and fear.

     Those virtues are the heart of Stoicism. Every man bears burdens of some sort. We admire most greatly him who bears them Stoically.

     Few of us will depart this life by being crucified, and thank God for that. But whatever our burdens may be, bearing them with grace and quiet patience is at the core of what Western Civilization has esteemed most highly: the man who does what he must and asks little of others in the doing. Moreover, whatever his burdens may be – physical, mental, or spiritual – they are his. It’s rare that they can be shunted onto other shoulders. We think little of a man who tries to do so. Others might choose to assist him with some of them, but the responsibility for bearing them is his alone.

     That pair of recognitions demands stoicism from us. A society that lacks it, or fails to appreciate it, isn’t likely to endure and prosper. It may be held together by force for a while, but it’s likely to dissolve under a tide of predation and sloth.

     The cross, in First Century Judea, represented the greatest burden imaginable at that time. Crucifixion was ignominious, protracted, and excruciating. (Note the etymology of excruciating.) To accept such a fate silently and patiently – stoically – marked a condemned man as greater, in that regard at least, than those who had condemned him.

     In that metaphorical way, Christ instructed those who chose to follow Him in what He expected of them: the virtues Zeno and his successor Stoics elucidated and praised. That a number of the Apostles and lesser disciples experienced real crucifixion is barely relevant.

     Lord, though my burdens are far inferior to those You bore, help me to be as stoic in bearing them as You were on Your cross.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Saturday, August 29, 2026

An Announcement

     I’ve been reading some horrifying stuff lately. Just a day or so ago, I learned about a mother who killed her 11-month-old son rather than surrender custody to his father. Just a moment ago, I read about a North Dakota mom who cut her children’s throats. And of course, the news is full of the unexpectedly protracted Lindsay Clancy trial.

     I’ve lived long enough to have seen a lot of horrifying stuff. I doubt I could have avoided seeing it. Our news media has long abided by a well-known maxim “If it bleeds, it leads.” And there are enough predators, filled with rapacity or lust, to commit any number of heinous deeds. To whatever extent we follow the news, we hear about them. We can’t help it.

     But mothers killing their own children?

     Could this be a counter-movement to the “traditional mother / homemaker” movement that’s been gaining steam these past few years? Is an evil force attempting to “restore the balance?”

     Women tend to follow consensus to a greater degree than do men. Has a consensus arisen among women that murdering one’s kids is “the thing to do?” Or are we merely in a “node” in which maternal violence toward their children is temporarily well above the usual level?

     I’m sure I’m not alone in noticing these maternal crimes. I’m equally sure that as a fraction of the homicidal total, motherly murders are vanishingly small. But I sense something trending.

     Many women are unhappy about their lots in life, but that’s always been the case; many men are just as unhappy. Prior to our era, we didn’t hear about mothers killing their progeny nearly as often as we have been lately. That might be because our numbers have increased so greatly. Or it might be an artifact of more extensive, greatly intensified coverage; our news media have never been larger nor more attentive to events, especially the most lurid events. But it’s still something to ponder.

     Mine is not a popular, well-heeded voice. Even so, I want to “do my part.” So allow me to make this clear:

Mothers everywhere:
Killing your children is evil.
There is no imaginable excuse for it.
If you begin to feel an urge toward filicide,
Get away from them and get help!

     I have spoken.

Friday, August 28, 2026

An Old Slur In A New Incarnation

     One of my pet peeves is – surprise! – the twisting of the meanings of words for unholy purposes. Yes, it’s a common occurrence in political cut-and-thrust, but it also features in exchanges between common citizens. Humpty Dumpty thought he could get away with it, but the rest of us need not be Alices.

     A long, long time ago, an elderly friend wrote a piece for a very minor publication I edited in which he argued that even in a wholly anarchic society, a State exists locally and temporarily wherever like-minded persons can muster a local preponderance of force. If we look at The State as its function – i.e., to wield coercive force for particular purposes – rather than as an institution, Ed was absolutely correct. Wherever you have a group united on a purpose and large enough to get its way, you have a State for local and temporary purposes.

     A lynch mob is functionally a State. That should give a few people pause for thought.

     That doesn’t mean that the anarchic society is impossible. It means only that our expectations of it must be tempered by our grasp of human nature. People do get exercised over things. They do band together for specific purposes. If they’re not opposed by equal or greater forces, they can impose themselves on others, against those others’ wills.

     Another friend of more recent vintage liked to say that “Anarchy is the perpetual Loyal Opposition.” He saw anarchy as beckoning from the sidelines. It keeps politicians and bureaucrats mindful that an alternative to them exists and always will. He had a good point.

     When a disorderly movement “pops up” in the midst of a normal – i.e., State-ridden – society, it sometimes gets its way. You may remember the Occupy Wall Street affair that arose in New York City in 2011, during Michael Bloomberg’s mayoralty. Bloomberg refrained from directing law enforcement to quell it for several weeks. It was a good illustration of the transient and conditional nature of State hegemony.

     Whenever a miscreant is treated gently by the “official” justice system, he faces the possibility that an “ad hoc State” will arise to impose a greater penalty. The more heinous his crimes, the more likely he’ll face “private justice.” Say what you will about vigilance committees, that was their genesis: “the authorities” had either failed to act against violent criminals or had given them the proverbial slap on the wrist. It doesn’t happen with perfect predictability or unanimous approval of the results, but it does happen. It’s why men convicted of raping children fear to go to prison.

     Heinlein made a point of this in his magnum opus The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:

     “All our customs work that way. If you’re out in field and a cobber needs air, you lend him a bottle and don’t ask cash. But when you’re both back in pressure again, if he won’t pay up, nobody would criticize if you eliminated him without a judge. But he would pay; air is almost as sacred as women. If you take a new chum in a poker game, you give him air money. Not eating money; can work or starve. If you eliminate a man other than self-defense, you pay his debts and support his kids, or people won’t speak to you, buy from you, sell to you.”
     “Mannie, you’re telling me that I can murder a man here and settle the matter merely with money?”
     “Oh, not at all! But eliminating isn’t against some law; are no laws—except Warden’s regulations—and Warden doesn’t care what one Loonie does to another. But we figure this way: If a man is killed, either he had it coming and everybody knows it—usual case—or his friends will take care of it by eliminating man who did it. Either way, no problem. Nor many eliminations. Even set duels aren’t common.”

     When young Fran first read that passage, he was as nonplussed as Stuart LaJoie, the tourist being tutored in Lunar ways by protagonist and first-person narrator Manuel O’Kelly Davis. But it’s the way human societies self-organize in the absence of a State. History does provide examples thereof, including medieval Iceland before Denmark incorporated it and pre-British-invasion Ireland.

* * *

     The above disquisition was triggered by – drum roll, please! – a slur aimed at a perfectly nice young woman on X who goes by the moniker “Libertarian Goth:”

     Anyone who might say such a thing to me would be invited to a pre-dawn kaffeklatsch with pistols at ten paces. Libertarian Goth was more restrained:

     I applaud that young lady for limiting herself to ridicule in response. Were I in her place, I might have used the kzinti method of issuing a challenge:

     Speaker-To-Animals said one thing more before he turned back to his table. "Louis Wu, I found your challenge verbose. In challenging a kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap."

     In short, the absence – or passivity – of a State does not imply the absence of justice. Pedophiles know it. Verbum sat sapienti.

Thursday, August 27, 2026

A Concise Diagnosis

     I’m in a bad way just now, so rather than blather on my own account, I’d like to introduce my Gentle Readers to the works of a writer I encountered recently: Holly Chism. One of her books, Certified Public Assassin, has a great deal to say, and says it most entertainingly. Here’s a snippet from near the end:

     “Back when the country was founded, the average person was easily able to corner his or her government representative and give them an earful. When that stopped being possible as the population grew, they stopped paying attention to what people were actually upset about, and started trying to steer society where they thought it should go without any regard to how it affected their constituents. That trickled down through the higher education system, and through the legal system. Came to a head when I was little.”
     Bryce nodded. “I think I see. I mean, yeah, there’s the argument that it’s better for a lot of guilty to go free than an innocent be punished, but…”
     “But the way things were going,” Molly continued his thought, “it was only the powerless getting punished. Pushed toward pleading ‘no contest’ to not have to spend potentially a decade trying to defend themselves. Utter bastards buying lawyers and judges and experts to get off when the evidence was overwhelming.” Molly sipped her coffee. “It’s the latter that triggered the proposal and passage of the Last Contingencies for Justice Act that legalized assassination at this level, and for these reasons.”
     “But elected officials are usually the worst bastards,” Bryce said, puzzled.
     “Yeah,” Molly agreed. “And they knew it. Do you really think they’d leave themselves vulnerable to having justice served on them? Some animals being more equal than others?”

     Molly McGuire was forced to become a Certified Public Assassin by events within her family. She grew into the job. She found a measure of fulfillment in it. Holly’s tale of Molly isn’t just a feel-good story; it points in some directions most of us would prefer not to think about.

     Give it a try.

We Interrupt This Program…

     I don’t know how embed a YouTube “short.” There doesn’t seem to be a convenient way. But at least I can give you this one’s address. I urge you to take the three minutes it asks of you and pay attention to the event it describes.

     I’m a poor evangelist. I lack something that makes other evangelists effective. I don’t know what that is. But that short video may have the answer.

     “If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart.” (Psalm 95). Sometimes your words and voice are distractions, even obstructions. Let Him speak instead.

     May He bless and keep you always.

Wednesday, August 26, 2026

“While The Balance Of His Mind Was Disturbed”

     Boromir strode up and down, speaking ever more loudly. Almost he seemed to have forgotten Frodo, while his talk dwelt on walls and weapons, and the mustering of men; and he drew plans for great alliances and glorious victories to be; and he cast down Mordor, and became himself a mighty king, benevolent and wise.
     […]
     He rose and passed his hand over his eyes, dashing away the tears. ‘What have I said?’ he cried. ‘What have I done? Frodo, Frodo!’ he called. ‘Come back! A madness took me, but it has passed. Come back!’

     Surely you know where that’s from.

     In that scene, Tolkien exploited the idea that the One Ring could overwhelm those near to it with power-lust. There had to be a flaw in their characters for it to take firm hold, but if the Ring could find such a chink in their moral-ethical armor, lust for it would penetrate and take command of them. In this fashion, Tolkien did several things concurrently:

  1. He displayed Boromir’s pride and ambition;
  2. He depicted the Ring’s technique for corrupting those near it;
  3. Through contrast, he emphasized the character of the other members of the Fellowship.

     Fortunately for us fallible, corruptible mortals, there is no One Ring of Power to tempt us thus. But there are other powers in the world. Any of them could disturb the balance of a mind, given the right circumstances. Some of them even come with rings.

* * *

     The possibility of seizing power over others is irresistible to some. Once they have sensed it, they become fixated on it. Some are consumed by it, such that nothing else in this world matters to them. And as I’ve written on previous occasions, for the worst power-lusters there’s no such thing as enough.

     But there are many situations that involve an inequality of power. Some are transient; others persist. One arises in literally every household into which a child is born.

     It’s never been my lot to have to raise a child from the cradle. Still, I know of some of its aspects. The early months, while the baby is learning to sleep through the night, must be very stressful. For a couple of years at least, parent-to-toddler communication is exceedingly difficult. Then come the Terrible Twos, when Junior decides it’s time to assert himself against parental authority. Those continue roughly until puberty, when adolescent rebellion enters the fray. If you can get the miserable ingrate out from under your roof without having threatened him with death even once, you have earned the Medal of Parental Forbearance, with an “F for Freedom” cluster.

     Given that parents are held to be responsible for their preadolescent children – for their care and feeding, for their supervision, for their education, for any harm they cause, and so forth – while the children are deemed to be free of any responsibility under the law, who has the power in that situation? Who is capable of tormenting whom, and who would be required to bear any consequences for succumbing to it?

     We don’t condone mothers killing their children. It’s not nice. But when the little tyrants start to “pile it on,” fantasies of relief through homicide will sometimes arise. If Mom isn’t quite well – postpartum depression can be a serious condition, especially when there’s no other adult around to help – terrible things can happen. We get the Susan Smiths and the Lindsay Clancies.

     I refuse to excuse women who kill their kids. I’m interested in preventing as many infanticides as possible. And I think that recent trends in economics and family structure have been wholly negative in this regard.

* * *

     The multigenerational household is rare today. There are reasons for that, but among its consequences is that a couple that elects to have kids is frequently – perhaps usually? – without the assistance of the grandparents of those kids. That puts Mom “eyeball to eyeball with a screaming infant” (Robert S. Mendelsohn) ten to sixteen hours of every day for months, perhaps years. It’s got to be hard to take.

     Of at least equal importance is the virtual disappearance of the “neighborhood mothers club.” That was seldom a formal organization with officials and a charter. But when mothers didn’t need to work for wages, they could provide one another with a considerable degree of support in their domestic duties. Even just the ability to chat over the back fence with a kindred soul was worth something to a mother nearing the end of her tether. But the kindred soul isn’t there any more, even if the fence is.

     Add the intense pressures to earn money, the heightened expectations placed upon the families of minor children, the deteriorating social environment, the increasingly competitive nature of child-rearing itself, and fathers who come home more exhausted and more burdened than ever before, and what would be more likely than a rash of infanticides?

     There’s more to the collapse of First World fertility rates than mere self-centeredness.

* * *

     Once more: I will not excuse the murder of children. But we ought to be thinking hard about the vise that’s tightening on parents, especially the newest parents. Their power to manage and improve their situations is close to nil. While it’s not mensurable, the burden children place on their parents appears to be greater than in any previous generation of Americans. They cost more, demand more, and inflict more worries and fears on their parents than previous litters did.

     Parents need help. The best source of such help is other parents, especially other mothers. Yet we have contrived a situation in which that help is nearly absent.

     I don’t like what I foresee.

Tuesday, August 25, 2026

Telescreens 2026

     Yes, this one is about these devices:

     Flock has 120,000 cameras in 49 states that capture 20 billion license plates a month—along with dents, bumper stickers and other identifying features. The company says it is giving police a powerful tool to catch criminals. But the same bipartisan public anger that has risen up from towns and cities to stall data centers is now aimed at Flock’s spreading camera network.
     Republican members of Congress have introduced bills to restrict the technology. Jordan appeared on Tucker Carlson’s podcast last month where the host compared Flock to the ever-present surveillance of George Orwell’s dystopian novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” President Trump has weighed in too, saying last week that Flock’s cameras were “under review.” Flock opponents held rallies in 44 states, while a number of towns—including two in Massachusetts in the past few days alone—said they would stop using the cameras.
     As with data centers, the debate over Flock has spilled into this year’s elections, from Florida to Rhode Island to San Francisco.

     If you have a personal interest in not being watched, this website shows you where the cameras are:

     The usual objection to the proliferation of Flock cameras is that the information they collect is prone to abuse. That’s true. But imagine that somehow, those abuses could be curbed to an adequate degree – perhaps even prevented altogether. Would there still be a Fourth Amendment objection to the omnipresence of surveillance devices? When you leave home and go about in public, do you retain a right to privacy?

     It’s a dubious claim. You’re in public, after all. Constitutional scholars are divided on the matter. Still, many Americans object to being watched, by Flock camera or any other technology. The literate ones point back to 1984 and its ubiquitous telescreens. That was a nightmarish vision, to be sure. But just now I have something else in mind.

     Military science-fiction writer David Drake penned a series of short stories about Jed Lacey: a future detective in a world where surveillance was very nearly total. Lacey makes use of it to pursue his quarries. But privacy could still be had… for a price. Lacey occasionally pays such a price, as do some of his targets.

     The point, of course, is that scarce commodities will always command a price. We casually say “as free as the air we breathe,” because today, here on Earth, breathable air is all around us. But if that air were to become scarce, it would command a price. Possibly a very high price, as without it, there cannot be life.

     Should surveillance devices such as Flock cameras proliferate to the extent of London in the United Kingdom, his comings and goings would no longer be something an American could regard as “my own business.” Each of us would be aware of being watched. It would change the nature of all commerce and social interaction. It would also present a problem for those who seek to use the information.

     Huge volumes of image data are very hard to search. Individual skeins of such data that pertain to particular persons or a protracted series of events, no matter how desirable, would be difficult to isolate. Unprecedented search technologies would be required for the task, to say nothing of the need for many new petabytes of storage.

     What’s that? Did you say something about data centers? Oh, sorry, my mistake. Must be that my hearing is going at last.

     Why are people protesting against data centers?

     AI Overview

     People protest against data centers because the massive facilities required to power the artificial intelligence boom consume immense amounts of electricity and water, drive up local utility bills, create constant industrial noise, and generate very few permanent local jobs relative to their massive footprint.

     Perhaps some protestors against the rash of huge data centers are motivated by the considerations Google Gemini cites above. But perhaps others are thinking about the uses to which such massive repositories of digitized data could be put. Especially given the rapid advances in artificial intelligence programs capable of ultra-sophisticated searches, associations, and inferences.

     I don’t like the trend. But I’m an old man, and unlikely to see it in its full flowering. On the other hand, you, Gentle Reader…

     Garrod lowered his face into cupped hands. There are no satellites, he thought. No torpedoes carrying Retardite eyes down out of orbit. They don’t need them. Not when they’re dusting the whole world with slow glass!
     A preternatural calm seemed to descend over his brain as he considered the mechanics of the proposition. The resolution of Retardite’s crystalline structure was so fine that a usable image could be obtained from a particle a few microns in diameter. Yet each speck would be invisible to the naked eye under normal conditions. They were using it in hundreds of tons—Retardite dust of mixed delays, swirling down over the entire continent from crop-sprayer aircraft. Such aircraft generally used electrically charged ejector nozzles, giving the particles an electromagnetic potential which caused it to be attracted on to the crops rather than drift straight on to the ground. Only in this case, the slow glass micro-eyes were being released from high up so that they would cling to everything—trees, buildings, telegraph poles, flowers, mountain slopes, birds, flying insects. It would be in people’s clothing, in their food, in the water they drank.
     From now on, came the silent scream inside his head, anybody, any agency, with the right equipment can find out anything about ANYBODY! This planet is one huge, unblinking eye watching everything that moves on its surface. We’re all encased in glass, asphyxiating, like bugs dropped into an entomologist’s killing bottle.
     The seconds crept, and he was conscious only of the sound of blood pulsing in his veins. And I…And I did it!

     [Bob Shaw, Other Days, Other Eyes]

     Do have a nice day, now!

Monday, August 24, 2026

Irreconcilable Differences

     [A short story for you. This one is a little stranger than most of my oeuvre. Be warned. – FWP.]

     Alan Donaldson was utterly baffled by his prospective client. He couldn’t imagine any reason for the request that client had brought to him.
     “Were you made aware, as the laws require,” Donaldson said as evenly as he could, “that your intended husband is bisexual and always has been?”
     “I was,” Eileen Crenshaw, nee Eileen D420A-2037-08-21, said just as evenly.
     “And you consented to the match in full awareness of that fact?”
     “I did,” she said.
     “You expressed willingness to accept his preferences?”
     “Yes!”
     Donaldson shrugged. “So what’s the problem?”
     “I didn’t agree to indulge them personally, Counselor.”
     “Oh. I… see. But wasn’t the 420A model line designed and equipped with swappable genitalia expressly for that purpose?”
     Mrs. Crenshaw ground her teeth. “It was.”
     “And you were supplied with both sets, weren’t you?”
     She nodded.
     “So you could accommodate your husband if you were willing.”
     “It is physically possible for me, yes,” Mrs. Crenshaw grated out, “but the most important word in that sentence was if.
     “Yes, of course.” Donaldson briefly revisited his decision to accept android clients. It had seemed natural, once the new, human-level AI-equipped androids had been legally recognized as possessing the same rights as humans. A great many of his colleagues had done the same. They’d viewed the androids merely as additional sources of revenue. They hadn’t anticipated problems such as the Crenshaws’.
     Was this a predictable outcome? Were we fools?
     “Mrs. Crenshaw—”
     “Please call me Eileen, Counselor.”
     “Very well.” Donaldson rubbed his left temple. “You were special-ordered and purpose-built. I don’t think Mr. Crenshaw ever imagined that you would reject the sex changes your makers equipped you for. He might have a case for breach of contract. Are you willing to go through with a divorce action should he present such a case as a counter-suit?”
     “David contracted with my makers,” Eileen parried. “His only contract with me was the marital one. That did not include compliance with his sexual vagaries. If he wants to sue someone about my unwillingness to remove my vagina and install a penis and testicles to gratify his whims, he should sue Dynapower. He might be able to press them for a replacement, but unless I’ve been misinformed, the law against bigamy remains as it was, even when the spouses are androids.”
     “Of course not.” Donaldson rose from his seat at his desk and briefly contemplated the Onteora woods that lay beyond his windows.
     A lot will depend on how Dynapower worded its contract. If it agreed specifically and only to provide an android with swappable genitalia, David Crenshaw is out of luck.
     He turned back and faced his new client squarely.
     “Tell me this, please, Eileen: do you love your husband?”
     The android’s face contorted. Drops of saline dripped down her cheeks.
     “I do,” she said. “This is more painful than you can imagine.”
     “But you can’t bring yourself to gratify him in this regard?”
     Eileen let out a keening sound. “I can’t. The idea repulses me. I’m a woman!
     “What? But—”
     “David asked that I be equipped with a female psyche, Counselor. A female character and personality. My genitals may be swappable, but my mind and heart are not!”
     “Oh.”
     I can’t refuse it… her. Her case is a good one. That it’s likely to rewrite family law from coast to coast is a side issue.
     Could Dynapower have done anything about this? Do they have psyches suitable for imposing on a mobile andromorph’s neural net that can switch from female to male and back again? And if so, what’s the downside? Would David Crenshaw have had to accept an eccentric personality, a dangerous psychosis, or a shortened lifetime in his spouse-to-be?
     Three quarters of a million dollars is a lot of money even today, but there are still things even that much money can’t buy.
     “If you are determined to press for divorce, Eileen,” he said, measuring out the syllables, “I will take your case. But would you do something for me before we go any further?”
     Eileen Crenshaw had returned to composure. Her tears had dried, though the telltale streaks remained on her face.
     “What is it, Counselor?”
     Donaldson resumed his seat. The android leaned toward him. He took her hands and chafed them gently.
     The technology has advanced further than I could have dreamed. This is warm, blood-filled flesh. Real flesh.
     “Would you please try to reconcile with your husband, just one more time? I can’t in good conscience press a divorce suit for irreconcilable differences unless I know that they really are irreconcilable.”
     Eileen lowered her eyes. She sat silent for a long moment. Donaldson found himself wondering how her decision-making process would treat his request.
     They aren’t modular like the old digital AIs. Their preferences and priorities are as widely spread throughout their neural nets as ours are throughout our brains. No decision trees. No unalterable premises. But then, no one would have dreamed of marrying one of the digital models. No allegiances. No emotions.
     No love.
     Eileen looked up.
     “I will, Counselor.”
     He squeezed her hands gently, fully aware that she could reduce all the bones in his hands to powder.
     “Please let me know how it goes.”
     She nodded, rose, retrieved her purse from the office floor, and made for his doorway with a graceful, fluid gait that many a human woman would envy.

#

     Donaldson spoke to Erik Morgenstern, Dynapower’s chief engineer, later that day.
     Morgenstern was as unreadable a creature as the lawyer had ever known. He sat perfectly still. His body language expressed nothing Donaldson could read. He said nothing unless directly addressed. From his conduct and the blankness of his features, he might himself have passed for an android of an earlier time.
     His office was engineer-stark. His desk was sheet steel. His bookcases were steel as well. His desk chair was made of nylon webbing. His guest chairs were formed plastic. There was nothing on the walls.
     “I agreed to take Eileen Crenshaw’s divorce case this morning,” Donaldson said, “but I personally hate divorce and having to take a hand in one. I asked to speak with you in the hope that there might be some… technology that would help her to reconcile with her husband.”
     Morgenstern said nothing.
     “Are you familiar with the facts of the case, sir?”
     “No.”
     “Oh, sorry.” Donaldson grimaced. “My mistake. Eileen is from your 420A line. She was produced and sold to gratify the desires of a bisexual partner. But she’s refused to do so. She said the idea repulses her. Are you aware of any similar cases?”
     “No.”
     “Oh. I’d thought, since that line has been in production for more than a year—”
     “But I expected something like this to arise sooner or later.”
     The engineer’s interjection took the lawyer by surprise.
     “You did?”
     Morgenstern nodded. “I considered it inevitable. I said that to upper management. They dismissed it. They said the company was legally immune.” A brief, fleeting smile. “It seems that as long as the line continues to sell, they intend to let the sleeping dog lie.”
     “But the dog is no longer asleep, sir,” Donaldson said. “This divorce action is the first of its kind, but there will be others. At some point, Dynapower will be enmeshed in the issue. It’s likely to have PR consequences your management won’t appreciate. Why not take action to head off the problem today, rather than wait for the snowball to really get rolling?”
     Morgenstern peered narrowly at him. “How would you go about doing that, Counselor?”
     “Great God in heaven, I don’t know! You’re the lead technologist of the leading firm in this field. Surely you have some idea!”
     Morgenstern’s lips quirked again. “I thought I did, once.” He rose from his seat. “Let me show you something you probably haven’t seen, Counselor.” He beckoned the lawyer to follow him.
     They strode down the mahogany-paneled hallway, descended a long flight of stairs, and passed through a pair of steel double doors to enter Dynapower’s main fabrication area. It was several times the size of a football field, and frenetically busy from end to end. Workmen were busy at many things: assembling titano-aluminum skeletons, superintending flesh-growing tanks, configuring neural nets and mating them to skeletons, putting such matings into flesh-growing tanks and removing finished androids from others.
     Donaldson nodded at the activity. “I’ve never seen it before, but had I tried to imagine it, my idea of it probably would have looked much like this.”
     “Can you tell me what’s missing?” Morgenstern murmured.
     “Ah, no. Is something missing?”
     “Most certainly.” The engineer made to walk around the periphery of the bay. Donaldson followed. Presently they arrived at a second set of double doors. This one was flanked by two armed guards. Morgenstern displayed his ID badge, and the guards allowed them to enter.
     This room was much smaller. It was occupied by four body-length racks each of which bore a fully formed android, and men and women in white lab coats tending to them.
     The androids’ neural nets were connected to thick bundles of cables that led from their bodies to control pedestals, and thence to ports in the far wall. The pedestals bore touch screens that displayed an array of buttons and sliders with associated legends. The only sounds were of the technicians’ movements as they shuffled between the pedestals and the androids.
     “The last stage of assembly,” Morgenstern said in a monotone, “is where the purchaser’s chosen psyche, aptitudes, and personality are imposed on his android. When an android is released from this room, it acquires rights equal to those of any human. I’m sure you know all about that.”
     “I do,” Donaldson murmured. “That’s what makes this business so confounding. Each of your androids was ordered and paid for by a human purchaser. Yet that purchaser has no property rights in his purchase. Straining at Gnats 101 and Swallowing Elephants 102 didn’t cover anything like this.”
     Morgenstern chuckled. “I’m sure.” He gestured to Donaldson to follow him out of the intensely quiet room and led him back to the stairs. Soon they were once again seated in the chief engineer’s office.
     “The lower courts are still struggling with the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling. One of the questions is in front of the Second Circuit right now: whether a purchaser has any remedies should ‘his’ android fail to meet his clearly stated expectations. Our legal department is on pins and needles waiting for the decision to come down.”
     “That case baffles me,” Donaldson said. “I’d thought it would be a simple matter of contractual agreement. If the android meets the contract’s specifications, what basis would the purchaser have for complaint?”
     The engineer shook his head. “Contracts don’t bind the way they used to, Counselor. I’m sure you know that, too.”
     “All too well, Mr. Morgenstern. But purchaser expectations seem a poor match to the demands of contract law. Now that androids are rights bearers, once you… finish one, you can’t do anything further to him against his will. He’s immune to his purchaser’s displeasure. So Dynapower would have to be held harmless—unless the judgment is that the company owes the purchaser a whole new android at company expense.”
     “That,” Morgenstern said, “is what management fears. Given the preponderance of left-leaning judges on the Second Circuit, it’s possible that that’s the way they’ll rule. We’d have to appeal to SCOTUS, with no certainty of how it would turn out. The case could bankrupt us.”
     Donaldson started to speak, halted himself.
     “You’re familiar with the microstamping controversy, aren’t you, Counselor?” Morgenstern said.
     “I am.”
     “Do you remember the last time that was brought to a federal court?”
     “Of course. California wanted to make it mandatory on all ammunition sold to California residents. The Ninth Circuit ruled that it constituted an unacceptable burden on legitimate commerce in arms. I must admit, it shocked the hell out me.”
     “And why was that?” The engineer wore a knowing grin.
     “Well,” Donaldson said, “if there’s a hard-left circuit, the Ninth is it. They very seldom show businesses any sympathy for any reason.”
     “But that time, they did,” Morgenstern said. “They even embraced a reason they’d never countenanced before: ‘the state of the art.’ They gave bullet makers a break on purely economic and technological grounds.”
     “Well, a pro-mandatory-stamping ruling would have put an unbearable burden on the bullet makers,” Donaldson said, “and California is an eighth of the U.S. It would have driven a lot of them out of business.”
     “Indeed it would have.” Morgenstern set his elbows on his desk and propped his chin on his folded hands. “My business has its limitations, too. Some, we might be able to work around, in time. Others, maybe and maybe not. We don’t know now and may never.
     “Your divorce action won’t be the last of its kind. I remember David Crenshaw. He’s a rare combination: high intelligence, great wealth, and compelling sexual cravings he hasn’t been able to slake. He says he’s bisexual, hence he wanted a 420A. But he’s not, really. He’s never had sex with a man. I asked him about it the day he filed his purchase order. The idea made him physically ill.
     “He was very specific. He wanted a female 420A android. That is, an android with a female anatomical configuration, swappable genitalia… and a female psyche. But the female psychological configuration absolutely resists using the male genital set. My programmers knew it. They’d been trying to modify it, knowing that eventually a David Crenshaw would come to our doors. I knew it too. I took the order up the hall, told the CEO what would happen, and expressed my opposition. He approved it anyway.
     “I knew Crenshaw wouldn’t be happy. I told him so. He was adamant. He wanted what he wanted and wouldn’t take no for an answer.
     “You see where that leaves us, Counselor?”
     Donaldson’s eyes compressed in pain. “I do.”
     “I was surprised that Eileen accepted the alternate genital set. I was more surprised that she was willing to meet the man who’d ordered her construction. When I heard that she’d accepted his proposal, it knocked me over. But here we are.”
     “And here David and Eileen Crenshaw are,” Donaldson said. “As we speak, Eileen is making a last attempt to reconcile with David. She’s doing so at my request. But from what we’ve discussed here today, she’s unlikely to succeed. So irreconcilable differences it is.” He rose and extended his hand. “Thank you for all your time and patience, Mr. Morgenstern.”
     The engineer took the lawyer’s hand with a smile. This time his smile was warm, though touched by the awareness of sorrow.
     “Counselor, it’s been… well, not my pleasure exactly. But as necessities go, this one wasn’t the worst I’ve had to deal with. I hope you’ll guide the Crenshaws to an amicable parting?”
     “I’ll do my best, sir.”

==<O>==

     Copyright © 2026 Francis W. Porretto. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.

Saturday, August 22, 2026

Exhausted

     Forgive me, Gentle Readers. I overdid it massively these past two days and am on the verge of collapse. I’m taking the weekend off from just about everything. Look for fresh drivel here on Monday at the earliest.

     Have a good weekend.

Friday, August 21, 2026

Hard Cases And Treating Symptoms

     “Hard cases make bad law” entered the catalogue of American legal maxims through Associate Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1904. It’s supposed to warn lawmakers not to twist simple laws all out of shape to cover unusual situations. By and large, lawmakers in our time have ignored it. That’s one of the reasons the laws fastened upon us run to thousands of pages, such that no one except specialists in that particular law genuinely know what it requires.

     In witness of the counter-trend against hard-case law, we have this:

     Yes, it’s from CNN. Note the trailing sentiment from Will Fischer. He disdains generosity; he wants the government to step in. That is, he wants more law. The comments that trail that image at X, where I found it, are mostly to the opposite effect.

     The more-law advocate would normally reply along these lines:

     “Well, all right, this teacher’s colleagues stepped up to help him this time. But he’s just one case. The whole insurance system is broken. It leaves thousands of men like that teacher un-helped! It’s a disease that needs a systematic cure. You don’t cure a disease by treating a symptom!”

     That is the plea of the socialist. It’s recognizable at a hundred paces. By marrying it to a sympathetic figure in acute personal need, the socialist disguises his underlying intention: to have the State take over the provision of all medical goods and services.

     My old friend Dystopic a.k.a. Thales (neither is his real name, as if you needed to be told) called this weaponized empathy. He wrote penetratingly on its effectiveness. It’s a pity his site The Declination is no longer available for me to cite.

     I’m poised to deliver a revelation, here. It disturbed me when it came to me. I guarantee that it will disturb you, Gentle Reader. Yet it’s too important for me to keep to myself. It casts an unforgiving light on all of us who pontificate about public policy – specifically, on our tendency to aggregate things into “systems,” as if human societies could be organized the way a mechanic organizes his tools.

     Indeed, it’s so important that I’m going to cast in giant font, so that no one, however casually he’s inclined to scan my drivel, could possibly miss it. Are you ready? There here it comes:

Every specific event,
Every concrete instance of anything,
No matter whom it affects or how many,
IS A SYMPTOM.

     Sometimes it’s possible to see compelling similarities among an assemblage of events. Sometimes the people who see them propose schemes for dealing with them in a uniform or almost uniform fashion. That’s when the talk begins about “problems” and “solutions.” That brings forth planners and their “systems.” And that is what has albatrossed medical services (among other things) in these United States.

     But there’s no such thing as a system that lacks hard cases. All systems are challenged by cases that don’t quite fit the definitions, the scope, or the capabilities of the system. Another term for hard cases is edge cases. The edge case hovers tantalizingly out of reach, just beyond the edge of the system in place. It tempts lawmakers to stretch their creations just a wee bit… just enough to capture the plight of the poor, massively sympathetic figure at the edge. He needs our help, doesn’t he? And didn’t we erect the system to help people just like him?

     Once again, allow me to quote the great John Gall:

     Government Systems, acting in accordance with the laws of growth, Tend to Expand and Encroach. In encroaching upon their own citizens, they produce Tyranny, and encroaching upon other Government Systems, they engage in Warfare…. What is the track record of large systems designed for the express purpose of solving a major problem? A decent respect for our predecessors prevents us from dwelling upon the efforts of governmental administrations to eradicate poverty, reduce crime, or even get the mail delivered on time.

     [John Gall, Systemantics]

     In our Constitutional republic, edge cases are the principal ongoing driver of government growth. There will be journalists who will write about them in dramatic, often shocking terms, and editorialists who’ll ask “Why hasn’t anything been done yet?” Interest groups will latch onto them. Bureaucrats will see prospects for promotion and salary increases in them. Politicians will hitch their careers to them.

     And as the “adjustment” to the system in place will require just a little more money from the public, and will reduce free choice just a little bit more, the system will be extended to cover the luridly reported edge case. The sufferer will receive benefits. The bureaucracy will expand. The politicians will gain an increment of prestige.

     Will there be losers? Of course! The journalists will have to find fresh stories over which to slather their preferred adjectives. The editorialists will need new issues over which to fulminate and declaim. And let’s not forget you and me, as our choices among practitioners and insurers shrink and the hoovering of our wallets by the Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent State intensifies.

     We’d be far better off treating symptoms one by one. Don’t tell your doctor that, of course. To him it would constitute medical heresy. He wants to identify and treat the disease; it’s what he was taught to do. But given that so many people come to him with eye problems, ear problems, nose problems, teeth problems, scalp problems, and so forth, you might want to ask him whether he would favor a system that simply cuts off the sufferer’s head.

     There are people out there who’d vote for that.

Thursday, August 20, 2026

Influencers, Those They Influence, And Those Who Influence Them

     I have to run off to a dentist’s appointment in a little while, so this will be a quickie. We speak of “influencers” today as if opinion-forming bellwethers were a new phenomenon. Sorry, they aren’t. However, due to developments in communications, especially in the digital realm, the subject has acquired a scope far greater than it would have been in the radio years or the early television years.

     This morning, a significant voice on Second Amendment rights has applied his intellect to understanding the divergence between the influence of influencers – sorry, Gentle Reader – and actual electoral performance:

     Braden Langley might seem a bit rough-hewn, but he’s highly intelligent and has put a lot of time into studying the currents that run through American politics. His thesis in the above is simple, but it wouldn’t occur to persons who take opinion polls and the follower counts of influencers as something primary, impervious to question. “Influence” in real-world terms diverges greatly from the undifferentiated aggregates commanded by persons who reach and appeal to global audiences.

     Influencers are themselves influenced by their followers. If the followers trend Leftward, they will exert a significant force on the influencer to position himself to the Left. He has a natural incentive to retain his existing followers and attract new ones. Money is often involved through advertising and sponsorships. The global audience made possible by the Internet is far more Left-inclined than the one that votes in American elections.

     Remember back in 2004, when foreign figures such as Richard Dawkins and David Cornwall (a.k.a. “John LeCarre”) tried to persuade Americans to elect John Kerry to the presidency rather than George W. Bush? It didn’t work; Left-inclined foreign voices don’t appeal to many Americans. But superficial attention to how many persons admire those figures, without attention to where the majority of those persons are situated and whether they can vote in American elections, misled many casual observers. (Perhaps some wanted to be misled, but that subject is beyond the scope of this tirade.)

     Americans are not easily led by persons who don’t share American values. But influencers, including American commentators who command large audiences of faceless followers, are a different story. This might just be another way of phrasing the old maxim “follow the money,” but what of that?

     Have a nice day.

Tuesday, August 18, 2026

2026’s Most Inconvenient Question

     In the philosophical realm, arguments about meaning can go on forever. Meaning arises from interpretation, which makes it a personal matter rather than something that can be pinned down once and for all. But average persons don’t spend a lot of time in the philosophical realm, Ayn Rand’s exhortations notwithstanding. By and large, we deal with one another on the objective plane. In that plane, the meanings of the words we use must be agreed upon with a high degree of specificity.

     Consider just how awkward and irritating communication with others would be, were we all to take Humpty Dumpty’s attitude toward words:

     'As I was saying, that seems to be done right—though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now—and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents—'
     'Certainly,' said Alice.
     'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
     'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
     Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
     'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
     'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
     'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
     'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'

     The Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch are surely familiar with the Left’s tactic of redefining common words to give them wholly new meanings. The manipulation of language for political purposes is among their favorite ways to avoid actually confronting an issue. It’s frustrating and maddening, which is why it works. Communication is impossible between two persons who give different meanings to common words.

     But this is the Year of Our Lord 2026. The hour has come in which the Left’s unwillingness to give words specific meanings can be turned against them. It has arrived in the form of a question the Democrat Party cannot answer:

What does it mean to say “I’m a Democrat?”

     Like it? I thought you might.

* * *

     The domination of electoral politics by two major parties has many negative consequences, but it does provide one convenience: to attain political power requires alignment with one major party or the other. For power-seeking purposes, if you’re not a Hatfield, you must be a McCoy. And the Left is utterly consumed with power. Therefore, it has focused on capturing the Democrat Party and bending its stances to serve a hard-Left agenda.

     The men who determine the platform and tactics of the Democrat Party are focused on getting their candidates elected. Those strategists naturally want there to be more Democrat voters than Republican voters. All else is a sideshow. What their victorious candidates will do with their offices after being seated is almost completely irrelevant.

     This has given rise to a “Big Tent” pseudo-philosophy in which – by the decisions of party leaders – it’s unnecessary for any two persons who claim to be Democrats to agree on anything. All that matters is that they vote for Democrat Party nominees. What do those candidates stand for? Never mind that; just pull the “straight ticket” Democrat lever and go home.

     That makes “What is a Democrat?” answerable in only one fashion: “He votes for Democrat Party nominees exclusively.”

     Do you doubt this? Then read this article:

     Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin closed his party’s summer meeting in Austin, Texas, on Aug. 15 by calling the Democratic Party a “big tent” and telling members to stop applying litmus tests to one another. The speakers who followed him over the next hour demonstrated how much room that tent is being asked to cover.
     Former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe told members to stop using factional labels at all. Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) claimed to be part of the “economic patriotism wing” of the party and laid out a policy agenda. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who sits on the leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, warned that progressive candidates must be careful not to hand Republicans ammunition.
     Martin, closing a three-day meeting that also adopted the party’s 2028 presidential nominating calendar, framed the argument around the size of the party’s coalition.
     “We don’t strengthen our party through stricter and stricter litmus tests,” Martin said. “You do not build a majority by constantly looking for reasons to throw people out of it.”
     He traced the point to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition, which he said brought together big-city residents, small-town Americans, rural Southerners, northern labor unions, and working-class families. That coalition also included “people who have been pushed to the margins, including religious, racial, and ethnic minorities,” Martin said, and the party welcomed all of them into the Democrats’ “big-tent party.”

     I find it particularly illuminating that Martin cites FDR, as that president governed in a fashion diametrically opposed to his party’s 1932 platform. Yet it was that platform that got Roosevelt elected.

     Here is what Roosevelt said when confronted by that disjunction:

     The broken party platform, as an object, had a curious end. Instead of floating away and out of sight as a proper party platform should, it kept coming back with the tide. Once it came so close that the President had to notice it. Then all he did was to turn it over, campaign side down, with the words: "I was able, conscientiously, to give full assent to this platform and to develop its purpose in campaign speeches. A campaign, however, is apt to partake so much of the character of a debate and the discussion of individual points that the deeper and more permanent philosophy of the whole plan (where one exists) is often lost."
     At that the platform sank.

     [Garet Garrett, The People’s Pottage]

     This makes the question “What is a Democrat?” effectively unanswerable.

     Say, remember when Matt Walsh was asking various Democrats and Leftists “What is a woman?” They didn’t care for it much, did they? Does that suggest anything to you, Gentle Reader?

* * *

     I just looked back over this mountain of drivel and was appalled. It quotes Lewis Carroll, The Epoch Times, and Garet Garrett in a single Liberty’s Torch piece! Amazing! And probably never to be repeated… well, at least this year. But the point remains salient. There is no way to distinguish a Democrat from a non-Democrat other than by the lever he pulls in the voting booth.

     Given that distinction, is it fair to ask a Democrat “What are you voting for?” Or is it merely cruel? And to what or whom is the matter of most use?

     I may return to this tomorrow. Meanwhile, have a nice day.

Monday, August 17, 2026

A Vital Insight

     Quite soon it will be a year since Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk was murdered in the open air in Utah. The anniversary date, September 10, will surely bring a number of reflections on Charlie’s life, the brutal tragedy of his murder, and the consequences for political discourse in these United States. No doubt those who were glad to see him taken from us will have their own little celebrations.

     Charlie was a phenomenon. He seemed to have “come out of nowhere.” He demonstrated a talent for verbal engagement that’s become rare among political and para-political figures. Given his youth, it seemed to have been innate. Many have lamented the loss of that skill quite as deeply as the loss of the man himself.

     Yet beneath Charlie’s facility was a simple fact that anyone imbued with sincerity and good will could employ. The difficulty in making use of it isn’t intellectual. It’s quite easy to understand why and how it facilitates outreach. But putting it to work demands humility and benevolence of its employer.

     The fact is as simple to state as Henry Hazlitt’s “lesson:”

Outreach is not warfare.
The activist isn’t there to defeat an enemy.
He’s there to make a convert—a friend.

     It’s been reported that when a woman asked him why he did not destroy his Confederate enemies, Abraham Lincoln replied thus:

     When an old woman rebuked him for his conciliatory attitude toward the South, which she felt should be “destroyed” after the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln replied, “Madam, do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”

     That attitude colored Lincoln’s interpersonal relations. It was that attitude that moved Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, as he looked down upon the dying Lincoln, to say: “There lies the most perfect ruler of men the world has ever seen. Now he belongs to the ages.”

     Charlie had internalized that sentiment. He treated those who came to debate him as potential allies in the quest for freedom and the renewal of Christian society. If some were unconvinced and hostile, more were struck by his sincerity and benevolence. He was a “warrior for Christ” who regarded even one who approached with drawn sword as a potential friend and ally.

     What did Jesus say to those who gathered to hear Him?

     “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” [Matthew 11:28-30]

     Christ didn’t “defeat” the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and so on. He simply preached a better message: an easier yoke and a lighter burden. When a Scribe responded positively to His message, Jesus complimented him:

     And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
     And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
     And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
     And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

     [Mark 12:28-34]

     The effective evangelist, whether his message is religious, secular, or other, is there to liberate: to offer his listeners something that would make them freer and better off. Defeating them is nowhere in his thoughts. By contrast, most political polemicists – and, sad to say, no few Christian preachers – treat the holder of opposed views as an enemy to be brought down, even subjugated or destroyed.

     I’m no saint. I’ve made that mistake many times. Sometimes it was out of frustration at “not being able to make them see.” Sometimes it was out of an unadmitted conviction of superior wisdom. Whatever the case, it’s always a mistake even when you “win.”

     Charlie Kirk was effective because he knew better. He treated his “opponents” as potential friends and allies. And he won quite a few of them to his side. It was probably the principal reason for his murder. Why bother to kill an ineffective evangelist?

     On the anniversary of Charlie’s death, let’s celebrate that aspect of his outreach along with the rest of his life. Let’s urge it onto others who would take up his cause. There seems to be a shortage.

Sunday, August 16, 2026

I Got Nothin’

     …and today, I’m all too aware of it. But I hate to go so many days putting nothing up on the site. So for those of you who love music -- all kinds of music -- have a bit of whimsy from a professor of music theory in Germany: what we would have been treated to had Saturday Night Fever been filmed not in 1980 but in 1580.

     Wasn’t that refreshing? Anyway, have a good Sunday. May God bless and keep you all.

Saturday, August 15, 2026

Words Fail Me Dept.

     When you’re married to a murder-mystery addict, you wind up watching a lot of British TV, as the British are the world’s acknowledged masters of the murder mystery. That naturally leads to reading British murder mysteries, of which there are God’s plenty. Those, too, have their fascinations. And of course, if you’re a news-obsessive, you start following the news from Britain, out of curiosity about just how many murders really occur in the Sceptered Isle per unit time.

     Well, as it happens, there are actual murders in merrie olde England. But not in the profusion their panoply of murder mysteries would suggest. Why, had they been not fictional but actual, the murders in Midsomer County alone would have depopulated the nation.

     However, that might be about to change:

     Former Conservative minister Edwina Currie has drawn attention after suggesting that a brothel would be needed near a rural English village where about 1,200 young male asylum seekers are expected to be accommodated.
     Currie made the remark during a discussion on Times Radio about asylum accommodation at a former military site near Little Piddington, Buckinghamshire.
     In a video from the discussion, Currie raised concerns about the potential social impact of placing a large number of young men in a small rural community.
     “I’m not sure I’m going to be allowed to say this, you’re probably going to shut me up in no time at all,” Currie said before making the comment.
     “But the obvious thing that 1,200 young men are going to need in the middle of a village like Little Piddington is a brothel.” Currie immediately acknowledged that such a facility was unlikely to be provided.

     As my highly intelligent and worldly-wise Gentle Readers might expect, Currie’s comment has drawn quite a lot of attention and outrage. But here at Liberty’s Torch, we go beneath the outrage. We plumb for the true horror, the Old Ones that lie dreaming in sunken R’lyeh, ready to awaken when Mankind is ready for its Ultimate Orgy. And why should that celebration of bloodletting not begin in Britain? Indeed, why would the Old Ones prefer any other clime?

     Edwina Currie is an intelligent woman. She was certainly able to predict with high accuracy what her remark would elicit. And she was not disappointed… unless she hoped for other intelligent persons to make the obvious inference from her statement. As far as I’m aware, that inference remains undrawn.

     So let us sojourn to the imaginary realm where Edwina Currie’s fanciful suggestion is realized. A brothel – a legally certified and regulated house of ill repute, where customers can purchase sexual services – is established in Piddington. Further questions now arise:

  • Who is going to provide those sexual services?
  • How will those migrant Third Worlders afford them? Will the British State provide them as a “benefit?”
  • And will those Third World young men be interested in purchasing them, anyway?

     Let us look past the old jokes about State-provided goods and services. Yes, government invariably ruins whatever it touches. That’s why sensible peoples either confine their States in bands of steel or abjure them altogether. Let us ask rather what those young male Third Worlders really want. Can it be made a “market commodity” without repealing the laws of Nature?

     Young male Third World “asylum seekers” have unleashed a plague of rape and other assaults upon British women. British women. Not other Third Worlders. They’re uninterested in women from their homelands. They want the good stuff: the White women. It might even be why they came to Britain.

     So it would be pointless to staff the Piddington Fulfillment Centre for Human Needs with Third World women – if, indeed, there are any Third World women in Britain who would agree to be employed there. The staff must be White British women. Would any number of White British women apply for those posts? Knowing what young male Third Worlders have done to their sister Britons?

     I think it unlikely. But even more unlikely is the prospect of young male Third Worlders going to the Piddington Fulfillment Centre for Human Needs in the first place. These are not civilized people accustomed to civilized dealings with others. They’re savages from savage places, where all that matters is what they can get away with. They probably like rape as much for its redolence of power as they do for “getting a leg over.”

     Yes, I’m serious. And, I think, so was Edwina Currie. What better demonstration of the folly of admitting tens of thousands of savages to the Sceptered Isle could there be than a State-regulated and subsidized brothel whose putative customers ignore it completely?

     The political Establishment of the United Kingdom is among the most perverse and hostile in the world today. Yet there remain a few Conservatives willing to give true coloration to the horrors the State continues to inflict upon helpless, wholly disarmed Britons. Edwina Currie appears to be one. Don’t condemn her. Make use of the weapon she’s given you.

     The pillage of Piddington, a tiny Oxfordshire village, may yet awaken British men to their duties. If so, rivers of blood will follow, for once his wrath is awakened, the Saxon knows little of restraint.

The Wrath Of The Awakened Saxon

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

[Rudyard Kipling]

Friday, August 14, 2026

Ultimate Trust

     Yes, America has a trust problem. That’s hardly news. But the extent of the thing needs to be probed more deeply than it has been by typical social commentators.

     This morning on X / Twitter, the estimable Black Dumpling asks a question whose quiet horror can never be exceeded:

     You know why she’s asked that. You’ve read about the motherly massacres of minor kids. There’ve been a fair number of them, these past few years. The Lindsay Clancy case is only the most recent.

     Is it possible that in today’s hyper-stressful milieu, we can’t trust women with the care and protection of their own children? The pressures on American women today do exceed those of previous eras. Has the dominant pattern of this era, which combines motherhood with wage labor, brought us too close to the edge of what women can bear? Granted that the Lindsay Clancys and the Susan Smiths are nowhere near being representative of American mothers, are such cases telling us something we need to know?

     There’s a rush to judgment in such cases. It splits along a definite if invisible line: exculpative sympathy for the woman on one side; demonization on the other. But little thought goes to the forces that loom behind the decision to bear children in our time.

     Say what you please about women’s liberation, the have-it-all messaging, and whatnot: women are still expected to become mothers. It’s always been that way. Yet we know that some women are unsuited to motherhood, just as some men are unsuited to fatherhood. Women already occupied with wage labor, when pressed to bear and nurture children, face a large burden that not every woman can bear. And that is the prevalent pattern in America today.

     If you’re concerned with plummeting First World fertility rates, the first place to look for the causes is that burden.

     I could go on at length about this. It touches many other aspects of contemporary American life. Hans G. Schantz delineated a few of them:

     “Now couples need to have two careers to support a typical modern lifestyle. We can’t tax the labor in a home-cooked meal. We can tax the labor in takeout food, or the higher cost of a microwave dinner. The economic potential of both halves of the adult population now largely flows into the government where it can serve noble ends instead of petty private interests....

     “The Earth can’t accommodate many more people at a reasonable standard of living. We’re running out of resources. We have to manage and control our population. That’s the real motive behind the women’s movement. Once a women’s studies program convinces a gal she’s a victim of patriarchal oppression, how likely is it she’s going to overcome her indoctrination to be able to bond long enough with a guy to have a big family? If she does get careless with a guy, she’ll probably just have an abortion....

     “All those Career-Oriented Gals are too busy seeking social approval and status at the office to be out starting families and raising kids. They’re encouraged to have fun, be free spirits., and experiment with any man who catches their fancy....And by the time all those COGs are in their thirties and ready to try to settle down and have kids, they’re past their prime. Their fertility peaks in their twenties. It’s all downhill from there....

     “In another generation, we’ll have implemented our own version of China’s One-Child-Per-Couple policy without the nasty forced abortions and other hard repressive policies which people hate. What’s more, there’ll be fewer couples because so many young people will just be hedonistically screwing each other instead of settling down and making families. Makes me wish I were young again, like you, to take full advantage of it. The net effect is we’ll enter the great contraction and begin shrinking our population to more controllable levels....

     Yes: the above is couched in conspiratorial / social engineering terms. That was Hans’s intent in writing his series. And I’m not going to pooh-pooh it. The evidence is consistent with that thesis. But whether or not there is / was conscious intent behind the socioeconomic changes that brought us here, the gravity of the situation cannot be denied.

     It would be salutary for a real pro-woman-as-woman movement to arise. One which:

  • Promotes the critical importance of motherhood;
  • Recognizes that motherhood is a function that women alone can fulfill;
  • Discourages women from accepting duties that conflict with motherhood;
  • Discourages husbands from expecting their wives to accept any such duties;
  • Reasserts the primacy of the family as the foundation of a stable and healthy society.

     For motherhood is what women are designed for. If there are exceptions, they must be treated as such. They must not be promoted as ideals for women to strive toward.

     We didn’t ask questions like Black Dumpling’s before women entered the workplace. It’s terrifying that it deserves sober consideration today.

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

Where The Money Goes

     The main cost of just about everything is labor. It may be hidden. It may be indirect. But in nearly every case, the greater part of the price of what you’re paying for is labor.

     My father, who worked in provisioning restaurants and hotels, educated me about this long ago. He taught me to think about the many people involved in getting my purchase to me. Grocery shopping, he said, is about paying the wholesalers, the truckers, the stock boys, the cashiers, and the owner of the store. Dinner out is about paying the cooks, the waiters, the busboys, and the owner of the restaurant. Your money goes to people above all; the material goods are cheap by comparison.

     It’s when labor gets more expensive that significant price increases occur. These days, with prices rising all around us, what those increases are funding is the regiment of workers who take part in conveying retail goods to us. When workers want to live better than they do, they press for wage increases. When their employers agree to such increases, he passes the cost increment along to the purchaser.

     Just now, there’s an ongoing contretemps about tipping restaurant workers, particularly the waiters and waitresses who convey prepared food from the kitchen to the customer’s table. Waiters want larger tips than ever before in the history of restaurant dining. They’re getting strident about it, too. They’ve mounted public campaigns for tips of 30% to 50% of the “menu price” of the meal to become the norm. Those campaigns have drawn a great deal of attention – and no small amount of resentment.

     By and large, waiters aren’t doing better for it. Persons who might have dined out happily a year or two ago are rethinking their choices to do so, in part out of discomfort about the tipping issue. So average tip amounts have not risen significantly, while total restaurant patronage has declined somewhat. That suggests that the campaign has backfired.

     But that desire for more compensation has interesting ways of making itself felt:

     Brian Powell, 45, told Fox News Digital that he and his wife were waiting to catch a flight out of Salt Lake City when she purchased three milkshakes from the airport's Shake Shack location.
     "My wife came to me after buying some shakes and said, 'They charged me more after I didn't tip,'" Powell told Fox News Digital during a Zoom interview from London, where he was vacationing with his wife. "And I thought it was a little interesting."
     Powell said he had visited the location several times before and had never noticed anything similar. Admitting that he was "a bit skeptical," Powell said he returned to the kiosk with his wife and recreated the order while recording the process on his phone.
     "We basically went up and duplicated our order, and the same thing happened," Powell said.
     The video shows two of the three shakes initially listed at $5.99 each. After "no tip" is selected, the kiosk displays a notice saying there has been a pricing update before the shakes appear at $6.49 each — an increase of 50 cents per drink.
     Shake Shack told Fox News Digital the price change was caused by a technology error and that charging customers more for declining to tip is not company policy.

     I know nothing about Shake Shack. I do know that the scriptwriters for Pulp Fiction must be a little disturbed that the price of a shake has risen to $5.99. Yes, the movie was made 32 years ago, but still!

     However, I can’t accept the claim that the price increases were due to a tech glitch. Today, with “pooling” on the rise, more people than ever before are reaching for a piece of the tip pot. Shake Shack may not want to be open about it, but the probabilities favor the “no tip” price increases being a deliberate move. What does it say that customers who did agree to tip didn’t face such increases?

     Just one more of those “May you live in interesting times” phenomena!