Saturday, September 10, 2016

The Object Of His Affection

     [I’m dry of commentary this morning, and the news is anything but stirring, so have a piece of fiction instead. I wrote the following story about twenty years ago, in a fury over all the hackneyed, unoriginal uses of magic as a motif in storytelling. -- FWP]


     Carl Harris stuck his clipboard under his right arm and shouldered open the door of the little storefront. The assortment of unrelated objects he'd seen through its grimy front windows told him nothing about what kind of business it was. He hadn't targeted this shop specifically. It wasn't on his rolls, and that was enough to warrant a look. When he let himself see and smell the place, he regretted his decision to enter.
     The shop was small, dank, and dimly lit. The air hung still and dusty. No one else was in sight. The bare counter he faced from the doorway stood unattended. Harris scanned the room for some indication of what kind of business was transacted here.
     The place was wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling shelves crammed to their edges with junk. An old chrome toaster stood next to a battered teddy bear, which leaned precariously over an antique shaving mirror. Beside them stood a jumble of shabby jewelry boxes, their fabric hinges frayed to uselessness, and a matryoshka doll whose painted surfaces were more chips than paint. There were tarnished candleholders of rococo design, and decorative candles in fanciful shapes, some that had been lit, some that had not. Ancient clocks and watches abounded. Commemorative plates and mugs were everywhere, proclaiming the glories of places no one in his right mind would ever visit. Over all of it hung an odor of mildew and decay.
     The driftwood of innumerable lives had washed up on this lower Manhattan beach. It was a junk shop, not even a pawn shop, and there was nothing more unpleasant for a retail inspector.
     People bring objects of value to a pawn shop.
     He'd take little or nothing from this place. The owner wouldn't have a cent to spare. Likely, he did this only to stay busy.
     Harris might have pretended he'd walked through the wrong door and backed out, but a short, portly old man in faded coveralls emerged from the corridor behind the counter, noticed his uniform and approached him, smiling gently.
     "May I help you with something, Officer?"
     Harris deployed his badge folder with a practiced flick: long enough to let his intended victim glimpse something official-looking, but not long enough to read his name. "Retail Establishments division," he growled. "This address isn't on the city's retail registry, nor on the tax rolls. What's going on here?"
     The old man spread his arms as if the matter ought to be self-explanatory. "Nothing in your line, Inspector. I'm just a collector of old things. I don't sell, though I do occasionally buy or barter. You'll note that I have no cash register."
     Harris fixed the coot with a dubious stare. The benevolent old uncle act had been tried on him before. He was armored against a lot better than that. Now that he'd entered this rat's nest, he wasn't about to leave without something to show for it.
     As always when he allowed himself to become conscious of what he was doing, he heard Amanda's ghost whisper chastisements in his ear. His left thumb caressed the smooth gold of his wedding band.
     "Why the storefront, then? This is a commercial block. Don't try to tell me you're paying a commercial rent here just to maintain a place for your hobby."
     The shopkeeper smiled but said nothing. His anger rising, Harris stepped toward the nearest of the shelves and reached for the antique yet new-looking toaster. All he had to do was find a price marked anywhere upon it, and the old fraud's story would collapse.
     The moment his fingers brushed the chrome surface of the old appliance, he was washed by a wave of acute stubbornness, a defiance of the forces of time and the universe that only death could overcome. His mind filled with the picture of a kitchen in a tenement apartment. Though the decor and the furnishings all looked to be from the Thirties, each appliance and item of furniture was as clean and shiny as it had been when new. He jerked away, and the image faded.
     Harris examined his fingertips. They were unmarked. He peered at the appliance. Its cord and plug dangled in plain sight over the forward edge of the shelf. The shelf itself was a plain slab of plywood. Whatever he'd experienced, it hadn't been an electric shock. He shook himself, approached the shelf a second time, and grabbed at the matryoshka doll.
     Upon his first contact with the doll, he was seized by an overpowering grief. Involuntarily, he envisioned a dimly lit room where a woman past her childbearing years, garbed all in black, stood weeping over a child-sized coffin. It was much like what he'd felt when Amanda died.
     Harris withdrew his hand, backed away from the shelf full of oddments, and faced the old man again.
     The shopkeeper's eyes drifted across Harris's countenance and down to his left hand, where the inspector's thumb continued to rub idly at his wedding band. Harris forced down his unease and started to bluster.
     "Look, you really don't want me to demand your papers and start looking this place over closely. Tell me what you've got going here, and we can come to --"
     "What a lovely piece of jewelry, Inspector. May I have a closer look at it?"
     The interruption stopped Harris cold. The shopkeeper's voice had dropped an octave and acquired a honeyed warmth. When the old man donned a jeweler's monocle and reached for Harris's left hand, the inspector was too stunned to react.
     "What fine workmanship." The shopkeeper rotated the perfectly plain gold band around Harris's finger. He studied it for several minutes, from several angles. "I've seldom seen one this nice." He removed the monocle and looked Harris in the eyes. "But you're no longer married, are you, Inspector?"
     The old man's gaze shone with an intensity that both compelled and soothed. An alarm issued from a deep corner of Harris's mind, but he could not compel himself to attend to it.
     "Well, no. I'm a widower. Four years now."
     "And you still wear it. A young man like you, who could so easily be starting a new family with another woman." The old eyes were wise and sorrowful. "You must have loved her very much. What was her name?"
     "Amanda." Harris's heart clenched at her memory. Even to think her name usually brought him to tears, and that wouldn't do, not here.
     The old man folded both of his hands around Harris's own. His grip was soft, warm, and soothing, like his eyes and voice.
     "Do you wear it always?"
     Harris nodded.
     "Does it help you to keep your memories of her alive, Inspector?"
     "Yes." He forced down the urge to weep. "It's been so different since she died."
     "Not better."
     "No." Harris could barely manage a whisper.
     "You must be very lonely." The shopkeeper's eyes, voice and hands caressed him in harmony. "There's so much loneliness in this city. Come in the back, Inspector, and talk with a lonely old man a while. I'll fix us a pot of coffee, and you can tell me about Amanda whom you loved."
     The shopkeeper pulled Harris gently toward the rear of the store, and he did not resist.
    
***

     Harris found himself in his own apartment late that evening, lying on his bed, with no memory of how he'd gotten there. Oddly, he was still wearing his uniform, which he usually doffed the instant he was home. He hadn't even removed his shoes.
     He rose creakily, noted the hour, and began to undress. He was in bed with the light out before he realized that he couldn't remember a thing he'd done since he arose that morning. His weary mind tugged at the day, trying feebly to pull even a single fact through the opaque shroud around his brain, until sleep claimed him.
     He didn't notice until the following morning that his wedding band was missing.
    
***

     Harris tore through his apartment in a pure frenzy of loss. He ravaged everything he owned, everything that might somehow have concealed his errant ring, not caring how much damage he did. His wedding band, his last priceless keepsake of his years with Amanda, was not in his apartment.
     Nothing would come back to him about the previous day.
     He rushed out into the Manhattan winter without his topcoat. Where had he been? What had he been doing that his ring had come off? He hadn't removed it since the day of his wedding fifteen years ago, not even to shower. How could it have come off without his notice?
     He groped for Amanda's memory. He needed desperately to apologize to her for his inattention. For the first time since her death, he could not form her face in his mind. The failure pushed him over the border of hysteria.
     He lurched through the streets, screaming, crying, jamming his hands into storm drains and scrabbling through heaps of trash. Passers-by, New Yorkers who normally kept a protective barrier between themselves and the lunacies that prowled their streets, could not help but note the coatless, wild-eyed man stumbling through the frozen concrete canyons. Later, behind closed doors, they would recount the events to their loved ones and wonder what loss had sent him forth to rave and stagger in the rising gale.
    
***

     It was three days before Harris rediscovered the junk shop. He was at the limit of his resources, having neither eaten nor slept since he'd discovered his loss.
     The old man was there.
     "Inspector Harris! Come in, dear boy. What a state you're in! Come in the back, I'll pour you some coffee."
     Harris allowed the old man to shepherd him to the rear of the store, where a small stove, table and two chairs awaited. The shopkeeper sat him at the table and turned to the stove for coffee. Harris sat inert, his memory of the place seeping back.
     "You weren't supposed to find this shop a second time, you know." The shopkeeper's voice was casual.
     "What?"
     "I suppressed all your memories of your visit, and everything around them for eight hours in either direction." The old man came to the table with two steaming mugs and passed one to Harris. "You were supposed to come to in your apartment at about ten PM. Did you?"
     Harris nodded.
     The shopkeeper sipped from his mug. "Your attachment to your ring must have been very strong. I shouldn't wonder. It was incredibly potent. I was lucky to find you."
     Harris couldn't make sense of the words. "Potent?"
     The old man nodded. "Why do you suppose I wanted it?"
     Harris started to rise from the table. "You have it? Where?"
     "Calm yourself, Mr. Harris." The shopkeeper chuckled, but there was no humor in the sound at all. "I'll fetch it." He rose and went to the front of the shop, and returned moments later with a gold wedding band.
     "Here." The old man laid the ring in Harris's hand.
     Harris stared stupidly at the ring. It felt wrong. It could not possibly be his. He began to slide it onto his finger, and the sense of wrongness intensified. The metal was cold and repulsive against his skin. He yanked it off and would have thrown it across the room, but the inscription on the inner surface caught his eye. He brought it close to his eyes and read.
     Carl and Amanda Harris, June 1, 1986. Now and Forever.
     It could not be his ring.
     It was his ring.
     Harris looked into the shopkeeper's eyes, pleading silently for an explanation.
     The old man smiled thinly and nodded. "It's yours, Mr. Harris. And you won't lose it again, at least not to me. I've no further use for it."
     "Why?" Harris whispered.
     The shopkeeper cocked his head as if waiting for Harris to answer his own question.
     "No guesses, Mr. Harris?"
     Harris stared, uncomprehending. The old man chuckled gently and looked away.
     "I had a lady visitor, two weeks ago, who complained of a straying husband. Now, some with that problem want vengeance. Others want to forget. But this young woman wanted the situation corrected. Firmly, so that it would never recur. So I began assembling ingredients for a love spell."
     "A...love spell?"
     "Oh my, yes. A blockbuster. The lass will have no further difficulties with her straying husband. Though I doubt she'll get as much satisfaction as she expects from having bound him to her through my arts."
     The old man leaned back and folded his hands behind his head as Harris gaped at him.
     "Every artisan needs raw materials, Mr. Harris. I'm constantly on the lookout for them. Objects with real potency aren't that common in this city of cynics. New Yorkers are obsessed with newness. Just as their possessions are beginning to acquire a hint of power, they throw them away." The shopkeeper clucked his disapproval. "Makes it hard for a man in my line, now and then."
     The old man's voice acquired a tone of reminiscence. "Have you any idea how much mana is stored in a pocket watch that a man has carried around with him for thirty years? That his father carried before him, and his father before him? I could keep this whole city suspended in time for a year on the power in one such. But the last one I saw was half a century ago.
     "Or take hair combs. They used to be passed from mother to daughter for seven or eight generations, back when they were made of bone rather than plastic. A woman with a seven-generation comb who knew how to use it once paralyzed a twelve thousand man army, singlehanded, for eight days."
     The shopkeeper sighed. "But that was yesterday, and yesterday's gone. What else is gone, Mr. Harris? Can you remember Amanda now? Can you call her image up from your memory?"
     Harris shook his head. "I can't see her anymore. For four years she's been there whenever I wanted, but..."
     The shopkeeper nodded, not without sympathy. "I know. You formed the habit of caressing your wedding band whenever you thought of her. The habit became a fixative, a binder for your memories and the emotion they carried. You had no idea, of course, but you were steadily storing all the passion you had for your late wife in your wedding band. You made it into a most potent talisman of love."
     Harris stared down at the circle of gold in his palm. "Then why...?"
     The shopkeeper smiled. "I've told you, I needed that love and passion for a customer. And I shall always be grateful to whatever gods guided you here to provide it to me."
     Harris began to quake. The sense of loss was too strong to be borne. He slumped back in his chair, whimpers gradually breaking through his shredded self-control. His hand brushed the grip of his service revolver.
     It occurred to him, as if shouted at him from a great distance, that the appropriate thing to do with what remained of his life would be to draw his weapon, level it at this smirking gnome and blast him out of existence. With the last ember of his will, he tried to muster the rage necessary for such an act, and failed.
     The shopkeeper leaned toward him. "How are you feeling, Mr. Harris?"
     It didn't occur to Harris to dissemble. "Empty. Pointless."
     "I'm sure. You're nothing but a parasite who pesters honest tradesmen, holding your powers over their heads, squeezing petty graft from them in exchange for your permission to earn their livelihoods. Your love for Amanda was the one bright spot in your soul, wasn't it? You could go home to her each night and hide within that love. You could pretend that the rest of your miserable existence was nothing but a dream."
     The words sped with deadly accuracy to the fading ember within Harris and smothered it.
     "Nothing in my grimoires has equipped me to fill an emptiness like yours. Yet, you've been of so much use to me, surely there's some sort of kindness I can do you. Wait, I have it."
     The shopkeeper rose and stared down at Harris from a measureless height, eyes glowing.
     "Go home, Mr. Harris. Sit in your bedroom, with all the lights off, and strain to remember your dead wife. And at ten-thirty this evening, when you're drained from the struggle and dry of tears, take that gun you're wearing, put the barrel in your mouth, and pull the trigger."
     Carl Harris rose from the table, made his way out of the shop, and did as he'd been told.

==<O>==

Copyright © 1996 Francis W. Porretto. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.

Friday, September 9, 2016

This Is How Bad Things Are Getting

     The Center for Disease Control (CDC) is asserting the power to suspend all Constitutional rights at its own discretion, without review or due process:

     I think I'll answer the door with my shotgun in my hands from now on.

     “Before all else, be armed!” – Niccolo de Macchiavelli

Two Rights Don’t Make A Wrong

     Suddenly the airwaves are aflame with controversy – mostly hand-wringing, really – about the “Alt-Right.” As matters worsen here in the Land of the Formerly Free, we can expect to hear more of this, for several reasons:

  • The Left needs a chimera with which to frighten the uninformed;
  • The “orthodox” Right doesn’t want to be “misunderstood,” especially by the media;
  • Commentators need something to write about, and like “The sky is falling” for the subliminal theme.

     The ironies are beyond counting.

     The Alt-Right emerged out of outrage at the spinelessness of the “orthodox” Right, particularly the Ortho-Right's terror of having anything negative said about it in the Main Stream Media. If you, Gentle Reader, an American of generally pro-American and pro-freedom bent but perhaps confused about this separation, envision the Ortho-Right as John McCain and the Alt-Right as Milo Yiannopoulos, you'll have a pretty good picture of the reason for their extended-family squabble.

     Granted that many American conservatives wouldn’t be comfortable with having a British homosexual for their standard bearer, but that merely points up the most significant deficit accruing to the Alt-Right at this time: its lack of an attractive figurehead. We have yet to produce an attractive, dynamic, white, Christian heterosexual ballsy enough to stand front and center for propositions such as:

  1. The races differ in important ways.
  2. The sexes differ in important ways.
  3. Homosexuality is an emotional disorder.
  4. Christianity is benevolent; Islam is malevolent.
  5. Equality, except for equality before the law, is a myth.
  6. American culture is infinitely superior to all other cultures.
  7. America’s prosperity and stature are principally the achievements of whites.
  8. Most hostility to America – including from Americans – is powered by envy.
  9. Americans owe nothing to non-Americans, except to allow them to go to hell in their own fashion.
  10. It is normal, natural, and laudable to love one’s country, to want it to be strong and secure, and to be angry at seeing it derided, humiliated, or invaded.

     Still, there’s time.

     (Yes, I’ve said all those things before, emphatically and stridently. But I’m no leader; I’m an old crank desperately straining to prop up a house that’s determined to collapse upon my head.)

     Unfortunately, given the burgeoning strength of the movement and the convictions enumerated above, at some point a politician (Working maxim: “Show me the way the people are going and I will lead them”) will decide there’s enough potential money, votes, or publicity in the Alt-Right to fly frantically to the point of the V-formation and nominate himself as its leader. Yes, it will create opportunities for the Ortho-Right to co-opt the Alt-Right and “get it back onto the reservation.” Yes, it will be a time of danger for persons sincere in their convictions. But it’s in the nature of the overarching political dynamic:

Power is most likely to land in the hands of those who worship it

     ...that it will happen.


     The current principal importance of the Alt-Right, whether as a scare-label or an emergent community of convictions, is as a message to the Ortho-Right:

“You’ve screwed the pooch.”

     Until recently, no one in the Ortho-Right with any public following was willing to entertain, much less express, that simple truth. Yet it is irrefutable. The Left has dragged the Ortho-Right in its wake, using the power of the media and “political correctness” to keep the Ortho-Right a couple of steps to the right of the Left’s position. (Cf. “moving the Overton Window.”) The Ortho-Right, concerned above all else with remaining within the zone of “acceptable discourse,” has followed like an imprinted duckling. It’s become essentially useless to the cause of freedom, American national sovereignty, and Constitutionally limited government.

     What more is needed to gestate an energized dissident splinter like the Alt-Right? Especially when millions of Americans were already imploring “their representatives” to act in accordance with the convictions they professed to get elected – something those representatives have become unwilling to do?

     What we’ve been hearing, though usually in softer tones and words, from the luminaries of the Ortho-Right is that the Alt-Right is wrong. That’s being proclaimed as if it were the most obvious thing in the world, when in point of fact there is not one shred of objective evidence that any of the beliefs enumerated earlier is false, or even questionable. What those luminaries really mean to say is that the Alt-Right is dangerous, and indeed it is – to them. It threatens their prestige, their altitude, their carefully nurtured audience.

     There is no real contest of ideas between the two Rights. The Alt-Right proclaims certain convictions, for which there is profuse objective evidence. The Ortho-Right merely deplores those proclamations, calling them wrong when they’re really only in violation of the artificial norms we call “political correctness.” In a sense, both communities are correct. It’s just that the time for excessive deference to people’s sensibilities – especially the pretend sensibilities of the Left, which is ever on the alert for opportunities to proclaim itself offended – is far behind us; we have a country and a civilization to defend.

     Consider the likely reaction of the Ortho-Right to this nonsense. Consider what the Alt-Right would say in contrast. Then imagine the shock and horror among the Ortho-Right. Add this recent development, rinse, and repeat. Such contrasts produce a pretty accurate encapsulation of the Right-on-Right face-off.

     I expect to write more about this. Stay tuned.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

A Quick Contrarian Thought

     I’ve got to get back to work pretty quickly, but the following, which occurred to me just moments ago, struck me as deserving of some consideration. For many years, left-liberal spokesmen heaped scorn upon conservative and libertarian opinions and those who voiced them. The famous example of the “Point / Counterpoint” exchanges between Jack Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander remains vivid in memory. The body of pro-freedom, pro-American sentiment grew steadily even so. Indeed, it seemed that the more derision was dripped upon us, the more interested in our sentiments other Americans became.

     Today, the Left’s preferred tactic isn’t to ridicule us, but to vilify and (if possible) silence us. Yet popular interest in the ideas of freedom, American national sovereignty, and Constitutionally limited government is swelling faster than ever. Is it possible that the Left, a notably unthinking, unreflective community, has unknowingly – certainly unintentionally – become the freedom philosophy’s greatest asset?

     If that’s the case – and I advance the notion strictly for the consideration of my Gentle Readers – should we be fighting the Left, or helping it to publicize its actions against us?

     Just a morsel of food for thought.

A Spot Of Humor

     The weekday Mass at my parish isn’t nearly as well attended as the Sunday Mass, for obvious reasons. Moreover, most of the attendees are retired senior citizens, again for obvious reasons. Therefore, whereas a Sunday attendee might bring a small and vociferous child along, a weekday attendee is highly unlikely to do so.

     Well, this morning we had a demonstration that “highly unlikely” isn’t synonymous with “won’t happen.” The child in question was with his grandfather. At irregularly spaced intervals, he would say “Ahh!” in that preternaturally piercing frequency range accessible only by the very young. This particular young’un was blessed with exceptional pulmonary power, too. His emissions were probably audible several blocks away.

     As we left, his grandfather was apologizing for the lad’s contributions to the liturgy. In the grip of an irresistible impulse, I replied, “No big deal. I just figured he was saying ‘Amen’ but kept forgetting how the last part goes.’”

     Does anyone know if making a priest convulse with laughter is legally actionable?

A Memory

     This squib from dearest Adrienne brought it back:

     After a doctor's appointment yesterday, I stopped into a local eatery for breakfast. I generally have a book with me for such occasions. While I was reading and sipping my coffee a nice man came up and said, "It's so nice to see someone actually reading a book instead of having their face glued to a phone."

     I know the feeling, and yet...and yet...

     Some years ago...all right, it was in 1983...I spent six months in California, consulting with a company in Los Angeles. A short-term consultant often lives out of a leased hotel room and eats his dinners at some restaurant. At the time I was in my “must learn absolutely everything ever known about economics” phase, so whenever I went out to eat dinner, I’d bring an economics book: Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, Vilfredo Pareto, Murray Rothbard, Frank Fetter, Janes Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, Mancur Olson, Milton Friedman, you name it. Not what you’d call light reading, but as I said, it was a phase. I’m better now...mostly.

     I spent approximately 180 days doing that: sitting down to dinner in some restaurant, ordering something modest, opening a book while awaiting my order, and straining to learn something. And each and every time, within about ten minutes someone – male, female, a couple, or an entire extended family – would come by and ask me:

  • What I was reading;
  • Whether it was interesting;
  • Was I from out of town;
  • Would I like to join him / her / them instead?

     Honest Injun: I never finished dinner alone. (I also learned very little economics.) And in not one instance was I unhappy about it; all my acquaintances were exceedingly pleasant and hospitable. (We usually wound up talking about work – mine – but hey, it was 1983.)

     Perhaps it was just that way at that time in Southern California. During my extensive travels as a real-time consultant, I never had even one comparable experience anywhere else. And I haven’t had one in any subsequent visit to L.A., either.

     Back then, of course, the Kindle hadn’t yet been invented. I wonder if my experiences would have been the same if it were otherwise?

     Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis. And not always for the better. But I cherish that memory, and those fleeting acquaintanceships.

America's undeniable decline.

I don't have a lot to add to this theme just now. The second passage quoted below speaks volumes by itself so that's that.

The article by Publius Decius Mus is excellent and is strongly recommended. He captures the uselessness of our "conservative" warriors over recent decades. Sounding good on any one day but, like Ryan, doing jack to do anything like carry the fight to the leftists destroyers.

For purposes of the present article, here's his thought on the possibility of the dying of the republic. Groveling before foreigners and minorities is but one of many symptoms of this:
One of the Journal of American Greatness’s deeper arguments was that only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise. It is therefore puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying. That possibility, apparently, seems to them so preposterous that no refutation is necessary.[1]
The economic collapse has been engineered by the best and brightest and reflects the combined wisdom and political maneuvering of Republicans and Democrats alike. As I like to say, people intend the natural consequences of their acts. Destruction is what's been on the menu:
Since the year 2000, the United States has lost five million manufacturing jobs even though our population has grown substantially since that time. Manufacturing in America is in a state of stunning decline, our economic infrastructure is being absolutely gutted, and our formerly great manufacturing cities are in an advanced state of decay. We consume far more wealth than we produce, and the only way that we are able to do this is by taking on massive amounts of debt. But is our debt-based paper economy sustainable in the long run?[2]
Notes
[1] "The Flight 93 Election." By Publius Decius Mus, Claremont Review of Books, 9/5/16.
[2] "From An Industrial Economy To A Paper Economy – The Stunning Decline Of Manufacturing In America." By Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse, 9/5/16. H/t: Gates of Vienna.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Phyllis Schlafly, R.I.P.

     By now, the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch have learned of the passing of the great Phyllis Schlafly, one of the most prominent conservative activists of the past half century. You’ve probably also learned of the outpouring of post-mortem hatred toward her from the Left. (UPDATE: See also this compendium.)

     The Left hated Schlafly for several reasons, but above all because she was magnificently effective. Many commentators have credited her personally with thwarting the Equal Rights Amendment. Her activism in other venues, especially in the cause of life and against the demands of gender-war feminists, never failed to spur the interest of conservatives and the dismay of Leftists nationwide. Here’s what Ann Coulter had to say about her:

     There is no more pristine example of the left’s “in-crowd” snobbery than their treatment of conservative author and activist Phyllis Schlafly....Her very name prompts derisive hoots from Hollywood starlets who couldn’t approach her IQ if they were having brains instead of silicone injected. To listen to the cool people, you could be forgiven for thinking that Schlafly is one step above a cretin. In fact, Schlafly is one of the most accomplished and influential people in America. [From Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right.]

     Schlafly’s personal achievements include a Juris Doctor earned in her fifties, a popular radio show, a syndicated column, the founding of the influential Eagle Forum, and ten published books, most of which are on military policy. Her very first book, A Choice, Not An Echo, sold 3,000,000 copies, assured the 1964 nomination of Barry Goldwater, and ultimately led to the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Her military analysis was a major factor in the Reagan Administration’s High Frontier initiative. Her activism never ceased, despite her advancing age.

     To return to Coulter’s thoughts on Schlafly’s life and accomplishments:

     None of this is widely known because Schlafly doesn’t brag about it. There is certainly not the remotest possibility that the mainstream media will ever breathe a word of her extraordinary accomplishments. Schlafly had derailed the left’s precious sexual revolution. Consequently she is demeaned and censored by the champions of women’s advancement. There is a raw “1984” blackout quality to the media’s ideological refusal to acknowledge Schlafly while posting endless tributes to worthless feminist nothings....

     Schlafly’s feminist counterpart and molecular opposite is Gloria Steinem. While Schlafly is a serious intellectual, Steinem is a deeply ridiculous figure who succeeded as a journalist only by becoming the news rather than reporting it.

     The contrast could not be starker...but one guess which of these women the mainstream media adore and slather with praise.

     So it comes as little or no surprise that the death of Phyllis Schlafly should be treated bloodlessly by the media, while the Left heaps contempt upon her grave. De mortuis nil nisi bonum, we in the Right have said when some Leftist luminary has passed on. This bit of classical wisdom is apparently alien to the Left.

     Mrs. Schlafly, thank you for your tireless efforts in defense of freedom and the United States. May you rest forever in God’s arms. We who remain behind will miss you terribly.

Assorted

     1. Headphones, Dunhams, and Feminism.

     There are days the only thing keeping me from climbing the nearest clock tower – why yes, I do own a high-caliber sniper rifle! Why do you ask? – is the incredibly witty (and blessedly prolific) Ace of Spades:

     Recently, feminists went ber-fucking-zerk over an internet article written by a dude explaining how to pick up girls who are wearing headphones (that is, who aren't likely to hear you, because they're listening to music).

     Feminists went absolutely ape-shit over this, as Mollie Z. Hemingway discusses in this Federalist podcast.

     How dare this man give you advice on how to talk to a woman who is strongly signalling she doesn't want to be spoken to! Why, it's akin to a violation! She's carved out a safe space for herself using her headphones as gates and you, Rapist, are trying to break through those gates!

     The insane fury of the feminists that followed can be said fairly to have broke the Internet.

     So you have that? If a woman is trying to not notice you, it is a Violation and a fairly serious one to attempt a claim on her attention.

     Feminists have spoken. This is now the Sex Law.

     Well.

     Please read the rest – and upon completion, immediately proceed thence to this bit of commentary by Stacy McCain:

     The proximate cause of Ace’s glorious rant was, of course, the ridiculous reaction of Lena Dunham to being seated next to New York Giants wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. at a celebrity event in New York. Beckham was busy looking at his phone and ignoring her and so, in her warped mind, Dunham decided this NFL superstar was dissing her.

     Let’s just state the obvious: Odell Beckham Jr. is 100% USDA Prime Beef. He was a first-round draft pick in 2014, and in each of his first two NFL seasons, he had more than 90 catches with total receiving of more than 1,300 yards. Against the Cowboys in 2014, Beckham had a Dallas safety hanging all over him when he made an absolutely insane one-handed catch for a touchdown that was instantly acclaimed “Catch of the Year.” The man is a phenomenal athletic specimen and there are probably no less than half a million women in New York City who, if they ever got within arm’s length of this 23-year-old millionaire, would strip naked and break down in tears begging him, “Do me, Odell! Do me right here, right now! I want to have your babies!” Lena Dunham, by contrast . . .

     Well, she bears an unfortunate resemblance to a potato.

     It’s been a long time since I laughed this hard.


     2. While We’re On The Subject...

     What subject is that, pray tell? Why, it’s none other than the contretemps over pronouns!

     I have perhaps told the story here before of the Fullbright professor who got the unenviable task of teaching my American lit class in the third year of college. My degree being languages, and the curriculum being more rigid than at any American college, (i.e. we all took the same classes and I rubbed elbows only with people with the same (or similar) major and minor), we were all twenty-something year old women, about 25 of us.

     Other than a brief issue when we could not, for love or money, decipher his pronouncing of “Poem” (It sounded like poym) and he thought we had never heard of poetry and was baffled, the class proceeded with no issues. Most of us had taken American Lit at high school level, so this was territory, just a little deeper and taught by a real American (TM).

     Until in the middle of a lecture he said something like “When any writer sets out to do x, he–” And stopped, growing pale, and started apologizing profusely.

     Apparently looking on that sea of female faces, he thought he was about to be crucified. When we got it through his head that we were not offended, he said “Oh, wow. American women would be. I’d have to say he or she.” We, students of linguistics, pointed out that “he” is the appropriate pronoun for indeterminate gender in ANY INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGE.

     His answer was something like, “yeah, but–”

     And you can take it from there. For those who haven’t quite grasped the point of the above, the author of the article cited above, fantasy / SF writer Sarah Hoyt, was born and raised in Portugal.

     I am reminded of something I wrote years ago, which appears in my nonfiction tome An Indie Writer’s Odyssey:

     The idea isn’t that anyone is genuinely offended by these idioms, or by the old “he”-for-generic-singular convention. It’s to make us censor ourselves: to compel us to prejudge every word that emerges from our mouths, pens, or keyboards according to whether it might offend someone. This, when American Negroes casually call one another nigger and a feminist playwright concludes her most popular play with a chant of “Cunt...cunt...cunt...”
     As a technique for silencing, and ultimately subjugating, one’s opposition, this one has no superiors and few peers.
     This mick-wop honky has had quite enough:
  • Idioms that use “black” or “dark” to indicate ominousness are just fine by me.
  • Persons who prefer lovers of their own sex are homosexuals, not “gay.”
  • Please, enough with the “undocumented worker” BS. They’re illegal aliens.
  • My fiction will depict villains who are Negroes, homosexuals, Hispanics, and Muslims as it suits me—and given the crime and terrorism statistics, it will frequently suit me.
  • And most emphatically, “he” is my standard generic-singular pronoun.

     Don’t like it? Read someone else.
     I won’t give in.

     An Indie Writer’s Odyssey is available for free, in all popular eBook formats. Get your copy while I remain insanely generous.


     3. To The White House or a Hospice? It’s Up To You.

     Here’s Wesley Pruden with a brilliant backhanding of the Left’s cries that questions about Hillary Clinton’s health are forbidden:

     When questions were raised about Barack Obama’s birth, and whether he was actually eligible to be president of the United States, he brushed the questions aside as if answering them was beneath the dignity of a prince of the crown. He let the questions fester for years before putting them to rest....

     Hillary Clinton is trying a similar tactic, portraying criticism of her vulgarity, her greed and her intolerance as hatred of women, and envy of a woman finally breaking through a crystal ceiling. It’s not working, in part because men have a reputation built over the centuries for mortgaging their lives to provide for their women, and in part because nobody knows better than women themselves that the accusation is silly. Is there a woman anywhere who wants a reputation for ethics, character and feminine grace like Hillary‘s?

     She, like candidates before her, may not like the questions, but voters have the right to ask candidates, and particularly candidates for president, any question they please. It’s what democracy and democratic elections are about. “If you can’t stand the heat,” as Harry S. Truman reminded everyone, “stay out of the kitchen.”

     Pruden doesn’t stop there. Please read it all.


     4. Just In Case You Had Any Lingering Doubts...

     ...here’s Jed Babbin on the Clinton email scandal:

     It’s a matter of record. Americans now populate the largest, wealthiest and most powerful banana republic in the world. The differences between Obama’s America and Maduro’s Venezuela are defined only by degree.

     The defining characteristics of banana republics are a matter of history. First, the law is not enforced against a chosen class in a banana republic, usually the allies of the autocrat in charge. Second, foreign policy is always performed in the autocrat’s interests and often in disregard of the nation’s actual interests. This describes how America functions in the era of President Obama.

     The newly-released FBI documents on the investigation of Hillary Clinton make it clear beyond argument that the fix was in and that the FBI never had any intention of recommending that she should be prosecuted for her crimes.

     That is very hard to write. I have had very good friends among the agents of the FBI, men of unshakeable dedication to the fair enforcement of the law. But that is no longer the FBI’s goal, as just a few references to the documents published last week reveal.

     Please read it all. Babbin makes an airtight case that the U.S. has descended to banana-republic status.

     I lived next door to an active FBI agent as a lad. He was one of the most thoroughly admirable men I’ve ever known...and I severely doubt he’d lower himself to serve in today’s FBI, especially under James Comey.


     5. But Even If She Respected The Security Laws...

     ...Hillary Clinton would still be culpable for putting the interests of Chinese Communists over those of the United States:

     Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton turned away a high-ranking Chinese defector who sought political asylum after the communist police chief sought refuge in a U.S. consulate in southwestern China four years ago.

     Critics say Clinton’s handling of the defection of Wang Lijun, a close aide to a regional Communist Party leader, was a blunder and lost opportunity for U.S. intelligence to gain secrets about the leaders of America’s emerging Asian adversary.

     Instead of sheltering Wang and granting him political asylum, Clinton agreed to turn him over to Chinese authorities in Beijing, and claimed he was not qualified for American sanctuary because of his past role as a police chief accused of corruption.

     However, the defector’s case highlights Clinton’s policy of seeking to preserve U.S. ties with China’s communist leadership instead of pursuing much-needed intelligence gathering on China at a time when Beijing is emerging as an increasingly threatening power.

     This is another story you don’t want to miss, especially if you harbor any lingering doubts about Donald Trump’s fitness for the Oval Office. Trump, whatever else one might say for or against him, loves this country, has never betrayed it, and can be expected to put its interests above those of foreign oligarchs or autocrats.

     I find that I agree with the sentiments of the pseudonymous writer who has said:

     2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die: You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.

     Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

     That’s a sobering thing to contemplate.

     Later, Gentle Readers.

Nationalism redux.

The communists made the mistake of believing they could make everyone equal by declaring them to be so. Liberals thought society was more tolerant because they banned vile words from the public sphere. Only now are liberals learning that this is not how human beings work. The revival of nationalism might indicate that people do still define themselves by ethnicity.[1]
The correct inference from the last line is that liberals believe humans define themselves by the presence of a pulse and regular respiration. How surprised they must be by the evidence that it's more complicated than that. That the Founding Fathers and Ratifiers didn't defined the nation as broadly as Vox Day humorously suggests that morons do:
Even the dumbest, most maleducated and historically ignorant American, who blithely accepts the idea that George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin believed their posterity to consist of Bantu tribesmen, cannibals from Papua New Guinea, and Chinamen in founding "a nation of immigrants", will tend to raise his eyebrows in befuddlement at new and outlandish claims about "Britain is a nation of immigrants", "the Judeo-Christian identity of the Swedish nation" and "all nations are nations of immigrants".[2]

That's a brilliant sentence though I have to disagree with his idea that ignorant Americans will be befuddled by the outlandish claims he lists. NO leftists absurdity can cloud the addled faculties of such people on the subject of third-world immigration. Foreigners of any make, model, or state of cultural degradation have an absolute right to travel to, and claim welfare benefits in, the U.S. and every other Western nation on earth as it is in Heaven.

Notes
[1] "Peecee Finishing?" By Chris Brand, IQ & PC, 9/5/16.
[2] "Action (((Reaction)))." By Vox Day, 9/4/16. H/t: Yer Ol' Woodpile Report .

Wrestling with the automotive gremlins.

I've been hunting gremlins in the electrical system of the Magnificent Honda. A loose hot wire to the backup light switch was grounding on the transmission housing which I discovered after meticulously examining and cleaning the instrument cluster whose gauges had ceased to function. A clever diversionary tactic on the part of Satan.

An errant air control valve has been replaced and victory is mine over a side marker light problem. Whether I have fixed a speed sensor problem remains to be seen and the mysteries of cruise control await further investigation.

We celebrate the 27th year of keeping this car running with an engine rebuilt at around 425,000 miles. It killed me to buy Japanese at the time but the quality was there and I've saved millions by having no car payments for decades. O'Reilly's Auto loves me but then I love them. They've been more than generous in providing new batteries when it's been operator error that caused all difficulties. They're heartless, greedy capitalist pricks grinding their employees into the ground at every turn, it's true, but they've provide great service to their customers.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Girls, Hold Onto Your Boyfriends...

     ...CNN is now reporting a two-point lead for Trump in its latest poll of presidential preferences:

     Washington (CNN)Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton start the race to November 8 on essentially even ground, with Trump edging Clinton by a scant two points among likely voters, and the contest sparking sharp divisions along demographic lines in a new CNN/ORC Poll. Trump tops Clinton 45% to 43% in the new survey, with Libertarian Gary Johnson standing at 7% among likely voters in this poll and the Green Party's Jill Stein at just 2%.

     Granted that two percent is well within the margin of error – and even deeper within the “margin of lawyer” (Mark Steyn) – the turnaround from earlier CNN polling is shocking. It raised a few eyebrows at CNN, for sure.

     I find myself wondering whether Clinton’s campaign is collapsing under a pile of jackstraws: The Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, the dubious state of her health, the ongoing email scandal, her general unavailability to the press, her notable likability deficit, Trump’s successful outreach to “traditionally Democrat” voting blocs, and so forth. Individually, none of those matters seemed potent enough to bring her down. Together, their weight appears to be a ball and chain for her campaign.

     There are a number of wild cards to be reckoned with, including for whom the voters currently registering a preference for Johnson or Green will eventually cast their votes. But the trend lines are currently an indication of danger for the Clinton campaign. What corrective action it can take remains to be seen.

     From my perspective, I think the swamp is too deep and the alligators too numerous for Clinton to right herself. Whenever she addresses one of her negatives, her opponents will switch to another. Moreover, She has an overarching problem: the more public exposure she accepts, the less the public appears to like her. That, and her understandable reluctance to lean into it, will tangle all the rest of her negatives into a knot that will be a real challenge to unravel.

     For the first time, it appears that Trump might succeed in his Cinderella campaign for the presidency, which at its outset was derided almost unanimously by the political press. He wasn’t my preferred candidate – I was a Ted Cruz supporter – but he’s preferable to Clinton by a considerable margin. Therefore: Yay!

Whose Story, Yours Or Your Editor’s?

     I’ve been making the acquaintance of an increasing number of other indie writers lately, in consequence of having joined Gab.ai. Quite a few of them have expressed frustration at their difficulties in completing a project. Many of the complaints come from writers who have quite as much to say about their frustration with their editors.

     At least one category of the complaints involves the editor acting as if he were the creative force, and arrogating to himself the privileges thereof.

     To make that plainer and more sharply pointed, such an editor criticizes not the grammar, spelling, punctuation, timing, scene-setting, characterization, plausibility of sequence, naturalness of dialogue, or other technical or quasi-technical matters but the causal underpinnings of the story: in other words, the author’s theme. The editor then tries to steer it in a different – sometimes wholly contradictory – direction. And many a writer, insufficiently sure of himself and his aims, allows such an editor a wholly inappropriate degree of influence.

     An editor who does such things doesn’t deserve to be heeded; he deserves to be fired. But that, too, is often beyond the confidence of a relatively new writer.

     Maxwell Perkins, one of the most brilliant and effective editors of all time, was scathing about such editorial assertions of a co-creative role:

     “The first thing you must remember: an editor does not add to a book. At best he serves as a handmaiden to its author. Don’t ever get feeling important about yourself, because an editor at most releases energy. He creates nothing....If you have a Mark Twain, don’t try to make him into a Shakespeare, or make a Shakespeare into a Mark Twain. Because in the end, an editor can get only as much out of an author as the author has in him.”

     Perkins edited F. Scott Fitzgerald, Erskine Caldwell, Thomas Wolfe, and Ernest Hemingway, among other literary giants. No doubt the great gifts of those writers helped Perkins to remember his famous credo – “The book belongs to the author” – but he worked in the same, self-effacing fashion with other, less well known writers.

     Contemporary editors, both of Pub World and free-lance, have largely failed to grasp Perkins’s lesson.


     I’ve worked with a couple of gifted editors who did understand the Perkins maxim. One of them, Rafe Brox, was responsible for cleaning up On Broken Wings. The other, Kelly Tomkies, was instrumental in grinding the burrs off Shadow Of A Sword. I won’t go so far as to say their efforts were what made those books readable, but it wouldn’t be too far from the truth.

     By contrast, I’ve also worked with an editor, who shall go unnamed just in case he’s repented of his sins, who wanted to recast my story in a wholly different direction. Ultimately, I ignored his “suggestions.” (It was made easier by his predilection for exclamation points and writing in ALL-CAPS.) Though it took a while – I was a newly fledged novelist and still tended to pay excessive attention to an editor – I sensed, that what he and I both wanted to do was to write the book. I decided that he could jolly well hare off and write his own novel, without my financial contributions.

     Now, there’s a moral in this. Many an editor is himself an aspiring writer. Why he hasn’t struck out on his own might be a mystery, but that doesn’t really matter. What does matter is the author’s authority and the editor’s proper place in the scheme of things. Maxwell Perkins got it right. You, the author, should enforce Perkins’s dicta on any editor you entertain the notion of hiring.

     That can be a difficult undertaking, especially as many a free-lance editor requires payment before undertaking the job in prospect.


     The great irony of the overly intrusive editor lies in this: the most effective editor for your book will be someone who genuinely enjoys the kind of story you have to tell. Thus, he’s highly likely to be a writer himself, and one who writes in your chosen genres, at that...and that will predispose him to the very over-intrusiveness of which I speak here.

     It doesn’t matter. You must be firm. If you’re not, he’ll succeed in twisting your tale to point in a direction alien to your wishes. The final product might well contradict the premises with which you started your project. Indeed, it might express a theme you believe to be wholly incorrect, perhaps even evil.

     That makes membership in a critique group of like-minded writers one of the most valuable alliances a writer can form. Writers who hold to common moral and ethical values can serve one another as editors, often to far better effect than many a “professional.” Of course that, too, has its costs. The largest of them is obligatory reciprocity: if he agrees to critique your manuscript, you are morally obliged to do the same for him.

     I needn’t go on about this at great length. Remember, “The book belongs to the author.” Don’t allow an editor to snatch it out of your hands and transform it into something you never intended. Imagine the shade of Maxwell Perkins looking down on you from heaven and clucking – not at him for his unholy cheek, which is all too common these days, but at you for your boiled-vermicelli spine.

     [Cross-posted at my fiction-promotion site.]

Monday, September 5, 2016

Scaly Wings And Rocket Ships

     It had to happen. Of course it had to happen. There had to be a fissioning of the parent organism – the community inaccurately and euphemistically called “SF/F fandom” – once part of it became implacably hostile to the rest. What will follow is the question of the day. For a change, my outlook is...optimistic.


     By now, any regular Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch will be aware of the upheavals over science fiction’s venerable Hugo Awards. I’ve written about them several times:

     Broadly, I consider the phenomenon an illustration of the dynamic that inheres in organization – any organization. The skeleton is fairly simple:

  1. As those who desire power above all other things will seek power wherever it can be found, an organization that possesses a power structure will be targeted by such persons.
  2. As such persons possess an inherent advantage over those who don’t worship power, over time the power-worshippers will come to control the organization.
  3. Once that has happened, the power-worshippers will alter the organization’s rules to prevent any threat to their hegemony.

     This has special significance for organizations that possess some measure of influence over cultural currents. Such an organization offers two kinds of power. The influence available over the associated cultural trend might be the more valuable of the two.

     But all that goes under the heading of “previous work.” A regular Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch will have grasped it already. (What’s that you say? You find it obscure, opaque, impenetrable? Were you here the first day?) It’s time to look at what follows when the organization has been completely suborned by power-worshippers and everyone is fully aware of it.


     The 2016 Dragon Awards have been announced. The list of winners reads like a Sad Puppies wish fulfillment. The Sad Puppies’ 2016 slate, of course, was completely disparaged, denigrated, and dismissed by the 2016 World Science Fiction Convention, where the Hugo Awards are decided. But then, WorldCon is firmly in the grip of our era’s most vicious, most determined power-worshippers: the “community” of “thought” we who don’t belong to it call “social justice warriors, “ or SJWs.

     The Dragons are awarded strictly by popular vote. I have no data on how many persons voted. (If anyone has the figures, I’d dearly love to see them.) What I do know is how eager the SJWs that dominate WorldCon are to disparage, demean, and dismiss the Dragons. Nicki at The Liberty Zone has captured some of the venom. (Please spare me the labor of copying all those images; go to Nicki’s site for them.)

     This, too, is only to be expected. What remains to be seen are:

  • The size of the community that participates in the Dragons;
  • Non-SF/F media attention to the Dragons;
  • The market influence of the Dragons.

     ...specifically in comparison to the Hugos. If the Dragons prove to be more influential than the Hugos, especially as an influence on sales, the SJWs who have corrupted the Hugo Awards will target the Dragons.

     Remember Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics:

Any organization not explicitly right-wing will, over time, become left-wing

     ...because – as if you needed to be told – leftists worship power above all other things. They require it to achieve their social, political, and economic ends.

     They who have organized the Dragons should be on the lookout for early signs of infiltration. What they choose to do about it – what they can do about it – is another subject.


     For the moment, the Dragons are good news: those who voted in them appear to have placed originality and storytelling ability above political polemics. What the future will hold for the Dragons is uncertain, though the dynamic is absolute and inevitable. If you care about good fiction – and by that I mean good fiction, not political harangues thinly dressed in space suits or wizards’ robes – the winners of the 2016 awards are available for your enjoyment. If you care a lot, you might consider participating in the Dragon Awards process in future years. The more participants, the more influence the Dragons will have on the direction of SF and fantasy fiction. Who knows? We might even see the end of the already overly prolonged vampire, werewolf, and zombie crazes.

     All that having been said, it’s time for me to add a few items to my reading list.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Impediments To Evangelism: A Sunday Rumination

     Every Christian, regardless of his denomination, is a part of the Mystical Body of Christ. In like manner, every Christian, regardless of his denomination or his stature within it, is called to participate in the Great Commission:

     Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. [Matthew 28:16-20]

     For the Apostles, all of them born Jews and schooled within the Judaic tradition, it must have seemed straightforward: We are to teach. Therefore we must speak of what Christ has told us to all who will hear us. I have little doubt that that was the course they followed.

     But note: Having personally known the Son of God, they were aware that He required them to live as He commanded. They were not merely to repeat His commandments to others, while freely disobeying them when “on their own time.” Had they not been good examples as well as good preachers of the Word, they could not have evangelized effectively.

     Among contemporary Christians, that dictum is violated about as often as it’s observed. Even among regular churchgoers, men who tithe of their incomes to their parishes and provide all manner of services to their congregations, there are many who reserve parts of their lives for priorities they place higher than God.

     But God is the highest priority. Awareness of His gifts and His will, mated to gratitude to Him for our lives and our chance for eternal bliss, must stand above all other things. While that doesn’t mean one must pray continuously and think only of spiritual duties, it does mean that when temporal concerns come into conflict with them, we must put our spiritual duties first.

     When one not yet persuaded of the truth of the Gospels sees those who claim to be Christians doing things Christians are supposed to abjure, his reservations, whatever their basis, will be reinforced. “Do as I say, not as I do” has that sort of effect on everyone.


     Central among the virtues a Christian must cultivate is humility. I’ve probably said or written that ten thousand times by now. Yet it’s a message that cannot be scamped or sloughed, for in humility is founded the most attractive of all the traits an evangelist can exhibit: the willingness to accept others as brothers in Christ, whether current or potential, despite all appearances to the contrary. C. S. Lewis, as usual, has brilliantly depicted the effects of the opposite attitude through his devil-protagonist Screwtape:

     I have been writing hitherto on the assumption that the people in the next pew afford no rational ground for disappointment. Of course if they do—if the patient knows that the woman with the absurd hat is a fanatical bridge-player or the man with squeaky boots a miser and an extortioner—then your task is so much the easier. All you then have to do is to keep out of his mind the question "If I, being what I am, can consider that I am in some sense a Christian, why should the different vices of those people in the next pew prove that their religion is mere hypocrisy and convention?" You may ask whether it is possible to keep such an obvious thought from occurring even to a human mind. It is, Wormwood, it is! Handle him properly and it simply won't come into his head. He has not been anything like long enough with the Enemy to have any real humility yet. What he says, even on his knees, about his own sinfulness is all parrot talk. At bottom, he still believes he has run up a very favourable credit-balance in the Enemy's ledger by allowing himself to be converted, and thinks that he is showing great humility and condescension in going to church with these "smug", commonplace neighbours at all. Keep him in that state of mind as long as you can. [From The Screwtape Letters]

     To accept Christ and His New Covenant is not an accomplishment in which one should take pride. It is a gift – a stroke of Divine mercy. To parade that gift as if it were a gold medal awarded for some athletic feat is to negate its beauty and its power to inspire emulation. To add a life of vice detectable by others is to grind His gift into the dust.

     It saddens me that not merely lay Christians but a substantial number of ordained priests and ministers have defiled that gift.


     I’ve said before that I write these Ruminations mainly as a way to talk to myself with some permanence. First and foremost they’re lessons from me to me, as if my better self were to catechize my poorer one. I review them more often than you might think. I publish them here on the off chance that others might derive some benefit from them, for I see that as part of my duty under the Great Commission.

     It comes at a cost: the recognition and admission of my own moral and ethical fallibility – i.e., my innate sinfulness. But that’s as much a blessing as it is a penalty, for it’s a reminder that however much I might prattle about humility, my own requires as much monitoring and reinforcement as anyone’s. Unless frequently reminded, any man’s humility can slip away – and it will carry away with it any power he might have to evangelize.

     Any counteragent to unjustifiable pride is a good one. Any reminder of one’s debt to God – especially the debt accrued by accepting His mercy – is a worthy one.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Are We Idiots Or Americans?

     Just a passing thought, but one I felt obliged to publish:

     The publication of the FBI’s notes from its interview of Hillary Clinton – pursuant to the email scandal, of course – makes it plain that one of the two following statements must be true:

  • Hilary Clinton is severely brain injured and therefore unqualified for any position of trust;
  • Hillary Clinton is a completely shameless liar whose sole interest is in power.

     It is impossible to evade both those conclusions. Therefore, it is impossible for any patriotic American to support the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton with his money, his labor, or his vote.

     I know, I know: Democrat partisans are loyal only to the Democrat Party and its quest for absolute, unbounded, totalitarian power over all of human life and commerce. All the same, forcing them to feel at least a little embarrassment over their choice is appropriate. But what follows from that strikes me as mandatory: compelling them to show their true colors where everyone can see them. At least that way, when the putsch arrives, we’ll know how to select our targets.

     Not for the first time, I am profoundly grateful for being an old man. Should Clinton win in November, at least I won’t have to live through much of the consequences.

On The Handling Of Classified Information

     I worked in defense engineering for nearly thirty years. Much of my work involved the use of classified information (CI). In the years before the emergence of convenient, high speed networking and communications, the rules for handling CI were relatively easy to keep in mind:

  • To receive CI, one must have a clearance equal to or higher than its classification level.
  • One must also have “need to know,” which arises from one’s assignment and particular duties.
  • CI documents must be kept secure at all times:
    1. When in use, they must be in the custody of a person cleared to possess them;
    2. When not in use, they must be in an approved, secured container.

     Before being granted my security clearance, I was required to attend a briefing on those rules. At the conclusion of that briefing, I was required to sign a witnessed document to the effect that I knew and understood the rules outlined above. As my Gentle Readers can see, they weren’t hard to understand.

     The key point of it all was this: By signing that document, I agreed that I was legally bound by the rules, as set out in the National Security Act and the Espionage Act, and could be prosecuted for violating them. Had I not signed the document, I could not be prosecuted; the First Amendment would have forbidden it.

     The essence of legally enforceable information security, as you can see, is the documented acceptance of responsibility for it. No one is ever legitimately allowed access to CI without first agreeing to be bound by the applicable laws. If there are other laws that require one’s signed agreement to be bound by them, I don’t know of them.

     There are some complexities here. If Smith, a clearance holder, provides CI to Jones, who has no clearance, Smith is prosecutable, but Jones is not – even if Jones knows that Smith is violating the law. However, under certain circumstances, if it can be demonstrated that Jones knows the CI is classified yet discloses it to others not cleared for it, he can be prosecuted. Federal law on the subject is a bit contorted, and not all federal judges have applied it the same way.

     In today’s heavily networked world, further provisions to the handling of CI have become necessary. In essence, they reduce to this:

  • A network on which CI is to be created or stored must be cleared for those purposes. The network’s clearance level must be made known to all its users. Moreover, no user whose clearance level is lower than that of the network may be allowed access to it.
  • CI must not be transmitted from a network on which it was legally created or stored to another, uncleared network.
  • If CI created or stored on a cleared network becomes “hard copy” (i.e., a removable medium or a printed document), that item must be protected according to the earlier rules for CI documents.

     These rules are, of course, included in contemporary security briefings, and in the document a freshly cleared user must sign in acknowledgement of his responsibilities. The application of these rules to today’s most common form of non-audible communication – email – should be obvious.

     That’s why Hillary Clinton must insist that she doesn’t recall having been educated in the rules for handling CI. It also indicates that, should Clinton’s signed briefing agreement ever come to light, she could be prosecuted for her email practices. Whether that agreement can be found is the question of the hour.


     I’ve often written that the security rules are in some ways an impediment to actual, effective information security. I continue to think so, at least as regards the rules for storage and for the creation of high clearance / “no need to know” classified documents control officers. (A significant number of recent espionage scandals have involved classified documents control officers.) But the rules are as they are, and are well known to anyone ever legitimately permitted access to CI. No “better way” has been proposed for the handling and security of CI in recent years.

     Perhaps the most important aspect of CI and its handling is that there should be as little CI and as few persons cleared to access it as possible. Obviously, there will be government officials who need access to it to perform their duties. The higher those officials are, the more subordinates they will have – and some of those subordinates will need access to the same CI as the boss. So the problem of limiting access is a stiff one.

     More, the problem cannot be confined to government. Private individuals will frequently be required to have access to CI, just as I was. The classification pyramid, which once rose seventeen levels into the sky (I was once told it went even higher than that, but I couldn’t verify it), is flattened somewhat for defense contractors: to Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret, each of which can be qualified further by the NOFORN (No Foreign Nationals) designation. Private workers allowed access to such CI must be as scrupulous as any government worker in its handling.

     Information disclosure is irrevocable. Once CI has been released to an uncleared person, there’s no way to retract it. Thus, the discovery of a “spill,” the jargon term for the movement of CI to an uncleared network, is always an occasion for extremely swift action in hope of remediation. It’s occasionally required the physical destruction of equipment in hope of preventing further transmission. (It’s also given rise to some well known gag lines such as “burn this before reading it” and “I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.”)

     Those persons charged with enforcement of the security laws are expected to take them very seriously, and the great majority of them do. The most recent disclosures about Hillary Clinton’s email practices horrify them, as is proper. They can see no distinction between the “extreme carelessness” with which FBI Director James Comey tagged her, and the “willful negligence” requirement for being charged under the National Security Act and the the Espionage Act. The notion that she should be allowed to go scot free appalls them, when they know that anyone else who’d done the same things would rot in prison for it. It makes a mockery of our beliefs about personal responsibility, justice, and of course the Rule of Law.

     Which, should Mrs. Clinton, demonstrably the most corrupt person ever to have attained a federal office, be elected president, might make “We Were Extremely Careless” a fitting epitaph for the United States of America.

Friday, September 2, 2016

A Divergence On Matters Sexual

     First, for those who’ve been asking: Yes I have stopped prefixing my shorter pieces here with “Quickies.” It came to seem pointless. Second, for general information: Yes, I expect to produce more short pieces in the foreseeable future, as the number of things I find comment-worthy has recently increased substantially. Now, on to the main event.


     Today, the worthy Ace of Spades declaims on the phenomenon of freely available porn and its influence on our sex lives. Ace is his own man and his own thinker, so it should come as little surprise that he has some off-axis thoughts on the matter. I’m in agreement with some, but in one particular I must register a quibble:

     Any married feller knows how hard it can be to get a wife (especially a working wife) into the mood for sex. And then the guy decides he doesn't feel like putting that much work into it, and a sexual chill descends. Sex doesn't stop when the woman stops making it easy; sex stops when the man stops asking at all.

     There’s some truth to this, but it’s incomplete. It’s presented without the causal foundation that really matters. And no, it doesn’t have a direct application to porn. Rather, it’s about the duties, responsibilities, and expectations that pertain to the married state. These things have special significance for those of us who regard marriage as a life commitment.


     Why does any man want sex with his spouse? More to the point, why would he stop wanting it, or stop wanting it enough to “do the work?” A number of possible reasons come to mind:

  • His spouse has become physically unattractive.
  • His spouse has become emotionally unattractive (e.g., bitterness and resentment have polluted the relationship).
  • He has suffered a physical ailment that makes sex painful or hazardous.
  • His spouse has suffered a physical ailment that makes sex painful or hazardous.
  • Sex with his spouse no longer fulfills his expectations.
  • He has lost the required desire and / or vitality.
  • She has lost the required desire, and has let him know it.

     There may be other reasons, as well.

     The decline of vitality that comes with age, pain, the diminution of physical attractiveness and libido, and the mushrooming of responsibilities that many of us experience as we grow older certainly matter. And there is some truth to the assertion that porn has greatly influenced our expectations of sex and its fulfillments. But the changes to our sense of the responsibilities that attach to marriage are seldom addressed.

     The sexual gratification of each partner by the other is not merely an opportunity to be exploited or not as one sees fit; it’s a responsibility of each spouse to the other and to the marriage itself. That concept, at one time universally understood, has fallen into obscurity with the rise of the “self-esteem” cult and the demise of the premise of marital loyalty.

     The red thread running through the matter deserves exploration.


     Do my Gentle Readers remember the “Me Generation?” You might need to be on the older side. It was a meme of the Seventies, when obnoxious excess was flowing from virtually every spigot in American culture. The central idea was a toxic variety of individualism: the notion that one should do whatever one chooses to do solely for oneself. It provided an accelerant to heedless promiscuity and marital instability, which surged threateningly as the decade neared its end.

     Many commentators are in the habit of blaming “The Pill” – i.e., cheap, easy contraception – for the explosion of sexual indulgence and its dismissal of the norms of previous eras. While that was surely a stone in the foundation, there were others of equal or greater importance. One of them helps greatly to explain the sexual difficulties being experienced by contemporary married men, especially men whose wives have passed through menopause. In brief, it’s this:

If she sees sex as something she does solely for herself, then when her physical desire wanes, for whatever reason, she will regard her husband’s desire for her as of no importance.

     It could hardly be more obvious. Sexual self-centeredness ignores the appreciation of sex’s role in binding the couple together and, as time passes, reinforcing the bond. Indeed, the bonding aspect increases in importance as carnal desire fades as a motivator. This is the case even as sexual contacts diminish in frequency and orgasmic intensity.

     But wait: there’s more! Should she make it plain to him that she no longer desires him, he will be inclined to view whatever amount of effort it requires to prepare for, initiate, and consummate sex as wasted. For his desire for her is in large measure a consequence of his desire that she desire him. A man sincerely devoted to his wife desires her for more than the pleasure available from her loins. He wants to gratify his woman, to make her happy, and to know that he has done so.

     Contemporary American women generally fail to grasp this, but then, contemporary American women are among the most coddled, overindulged, generally spoiled creatures the human race has ever produced. One spate of what passes for “women’s rights” blather today should be sufficient proof.

     Much of the inclination to stray (to say nothing of the actual adultery) indulged by today’s married men stands thus explained.


     When wives regarded their husbands as more than just instruments for the wives’ happiness, comfort, and pleasure, this problem was far less frequent. Other phenomena such as the “practice marriage” and the “birth dearth” are also explained in part. However, it cannot be separated from the wider cultural degeneration Americans have experienced, so much of which arises from the dismissal of community as an important ingredient in our lives.

     Community – broadly speaking concern for and involvement with one’s neighbors – is the most important of all reinforcers of norms. Indeed, a norm cannot exist without a reinforcing community. When marriage was both the entry point to and the adhesive that bound an American community, the failure of a marriage was regarded as a failure of the individuals involved. They were deemed to have failed one another and the community in an important way. Parents told their children to regard them in that light.

     In my estimation, porn as a negative influence on the sex lives of Americans is of considerably less importance.

     I could go on from here. I could cite any number of “fulfillment gurus.” I could talk about the pernicious effects of “no-fault” divorce. I could ring in the “same sex marriage” movement and demonstrate its negative impact on both marital stability and on fertility. But I trust the point has been made.

     How do you see your spouse, Gentle Reader? As one to whom you’re bound by love and a sense of mutual responsibility, or as an occasionally useful adjunct to your pursuit of your personal desires?

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Assorted

     1. Nothing Outside the State!

     Does Andrew Cuomo have a little Mussolini blood in him?

     Gov. Cuomo and legislative leaders are patting themselves on the back after the governor finally signed Albany’s latest useless ethics-reform package. But they’re pretty much the only ones cheering.... it imposes onerous and overly broad disclosure requirements on nonprofits and legitimate charities that will only serve to inhibit their fund-raising and limit their ability to lobby government.

     We’re talking about institutions like hospitals and charities, whose ability to engage in political activity is already tightly regulated by the IRS. Now, the New York Public Interest Research Group says, they may have to disclose all of their donors if they so much as “talk to another not-for-profit.”

     New York was recently rated the least free of the fifty states. Our state power-mongers are more avid for increases in their authority than any others. They’re openly opposed to anything done by private agencies that they can’t somehow tax and control. And Andrew Cuomo, the Thug-in-Chief of the Empire State, has this nasty habit of ramming bills through the legislature at three AM. All in the name of “transparency,” of course.

     Viewing developments such as this one, it’s pretty clear why Cuomo doesn’t want firearms in the hands of private citizens.


     2. Shut Up.

     Australian jewel Joanne Nova provides this morsel:

     Students in the University of Colorado expressed concern about the first online lecture in “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age”. All three Professors together replied via email that students should Drop class if they dispute man-made climate change
     “The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.

     “Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued.

     “… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course… – signed Professors, Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill

     The ban included discussions on online forums among students (we wouldn’t want people polluting the thoughts of believers, would we?) And no thoughts or arguments outside of those approved by an unelected, unaccountable foreign committee shall be considered.

     The warmistas are utterly terrified by actual debate. But of course! Their non-science is nonsense. And theories that can’t stand exposure to observed facts have only one way to survive: they must suppress all discussion of them.

     Andrew Klavan has the right of it:


     3. While We’re On The Subject Of “Climate Change.”

     Steven Crowder has produced a pithy debunking video of “climate change” myths, and has appended links to articles with extensive information on the specifics. It’s worth twenty minutes of your time; trust me on that.

     What I find most notable about the affair is and has always been the warmistas’ emphasis on “consensus.” In point of fact, there is no consensus on the subject. That myth was fabricated out of a single survey of “scientific papers,” the methodology of which has been investigated and thoroughly debunked. More, 31,000 genuine scientists have signed a petition opposing political action on “climate change.” But these are not things you’re likely to hear about from the main stream media.


     4. Yet Another Infringement Of Your Nonexistent Right To Privacy.

     Nothing in the Constitution of the United States guarantees your “right to privacy.” That’s as it should be, for as I’ve argued and repeatedly written, not only is privacy not a right, it isn’t even possible. Yet there are still things governments do to intrude upon our privacy that we’d surely rather they refrain from doing. Here’s the latest of them:

     Since January, police in Baltimore have been testing an aerial surveillance system developed for military use in Iraq. The system records visible activity across an area as wide as thirty square miles for as much as ten hours at a time. Police can use it to work backward from an event, watching the comings and goings of people and cars to develop leads about who was involved. "Google Earth with TiVo capability," says the founder of the company that provides this system to Baltimore.

     But the technology collects images of everyone and everything. From people in their backyards to anyone going from home to work, to the psychologist's or marriage counselor's office, to meetings with lawyers or advocacy groups, and to public protests. It's a powerful tool for law enforcement—and for privacy invasion.

     So this technology collects information about us that we’ve already released into the common environment. That’s not a search or a seizure as the Fourth Amendment regards them:

     The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

     Yes, “effects” includes all one’s movable property, but when one ventures out in public, the information is there to be collected by whoever wants it – and for whatever reason he might want it. The only way to keep such information to ourselves is not to emit it in the first place: i.e., to stay home.

     While such surveillance is therefore within Constitutional bounds, it does present an unpleasantly eerie aspect. We’d rather governments not be watching us all the time. But how do we stop them from doing so, when even Google Earth already has enough data about us to forecast where we’re going and what we’ll do there with pretty good accuracy?


     That’s all I have for today, Gentle Reader. It’s just as well, as I’m seriously behind on two different novels-in-progress. Apropos of which, I’ve reluctantly concluded that the way to “loosen up” on a stalled writing project is not to start another one. Verbum sat sapienti.

     See you tomorrow.