Gay "marriage": a victory for decentralization?

I've been spending quite a bit of time lately over at the Tenth Amendment Center where they're doing a good job of keeping up with all of the tenth amendment resolutions, and other state enactments and citizen movements as they're happening.

Just a few days ago New Hampshire became the sixth state in the union to authorize gay "marriage." In praise of this radical move by the New Hampshire legislature, Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center writes that,

Whether you support this particular issue or not, I think people across the political spectrum can see this as a victory for decentralization. The 10th Amendment makes it quite clear that the most important social issues should be handled on a state level, or by the people themselves.

Really? I'm not going to dispute that the tenth amendment reserves to the states and to the people the great residual of political powers, obviously, it being a central theme of this blog the principle of Balanced Constitutional Government. But exactly how is this instance some prime example of a "victory for decentralization?" And if it is an example of such a victory, isn't the fact that 34 or 35 other states in this union which have explicitly denied homosexual "marriage" is the more important and more decisive victory ... for decentralization?

I suppose I understand the impulse to applaud movements which seem to favor the decentralization of political powers consistent with the constitution, particularly in an era in which centralization of political powers is not only commonplace, but one of the ruling principles of our degenerating society. On the other hand, something so obviously self-destructive to society as undermining its foundational institution hardly seems to me to be especially deserving of praise and adulation, particularly when the exact same principle one is supposedly applauding has been applied in six times the number of states, albeit with diametrically opposing results.

I won't say that Boldin has some kind of underlying homosexual advocacy agenda here, because we know that people are often on the wrong side of an issue for all the right reasons, and vice versa. But it seems rather odd to me, nonetheless, to praise this radical, self-destructive movement by the state of New Hampshire while neglecting to mention the movement amongst the states to protect the institution of marriage. But maybe it was just an error of omission.

Y'know, had the New Hampshire legislature voted the other way, not only would it be able to claim a victory for decentralization, but it would have also retained its dignity. As it is, the state is apparently ruled by sodomites.

Read More

Let me reiterate:

If we're really serious about the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment, then let's start talking seriously about a way to actually effect it while simultaneously erecting barriers to abuses thereof by the currently unaccountable national authority. Otherwise I maintain my opposition, not to protecting marriage, but to the FMA.

Call me crazy.

Read More

Toward a Federal Marriage Amendment

With the all-out radical leftist assault on traditional marriage in full force in this country, we're hearing again that what we need, what we must have is a Federal Marriage Amendment to save traditional marriage in America, and everything will be ok. I personally have resisted this approach since the debate was first nationalized on the grounds that amending the U.S. constitution to define marriage would have, good intentions notwithstanding, unintended consequences serving to add yet another twenty miles of pavement to the federal super-highway to hell. And through the clearing that's already taken place ahead, I can see the utter desolation of its final destination from here.

Nonetheless, and given my view of the sacredness of traditional marriage and why it must be protected, not only do I question my own position -- a position which pits me against respected traditional marriage advocates like Dr. Dobson, and Don Wildmon of AFA, and Lawrence Auster, and etc... -- on the FMA from time to time, but at certain times, given the popularity of the federal approach to protecting marriage among the more well known and well respected advocates of traditional marriage in this country, I get the feeling that ultimately the FMA might be the only method that the majority can agree on.

However, via John Savage's latest post in his recent series of entries concerning traditional marriage (see here, here, and here), I'm led to this 4-W entry on the topic and Lydia McGrew's comments concerning the FMA.

Lydia writes:

On purely (and I do mean purely) prudential grounds, I recommend state amendments. I worry about what a federal amendment would be used to do. There is a sense in which writing an amendment to the federal Constitution is like handing the federal courts a blank sheet on which they will write whatever they like. One doesn't mean to do that, but it could come to that. For example, if a federal amendment doesn't prohibit civil unions, some crazy federal court could rule that that means states _must_ have civil unions, or recognize other states' civil unions. And so forth. In my own state, our state Supreme Court tends to be more disciplined as far as sticking to what laws and the state constitution actually mean rather than telling lies about them.

My sense tells me that Lydia's concerns with the Federal Marriage Amendment are perfectly reasonable and legitimate. We all know that the unaccountable federal courts (and the federal Congress does nothing to prohibit it) love to divine the spirit of the federal constitution, and to mold it and shape it in their own image of what it should be. On the other hand, of course, we all know too that the federal courts aren't particularly disinclined from overthrowing State law when State laws have been molded and shaped by State legislatures whose image of the federal constitution doesn't match up to that of the federal judiciary.

All that aside, though, and as I've written before, the federal constitution provides two methods of amendment in Article V. Now, currently we have 27 separate State marriage amendments on the books in this country, and several others in the making. And with the most recent leftist assaults on the institution of marriage and the absolute certainty that the onslaught will continue in more radical ways than we've even seen thus far (this is the nature of liberalism; the less radical it needs to be to effect its purposes, the more radical it gets), I predict that this number of States with marriage amendments attached to their constitutions is going to grow significantly in the relatively near future. Indeed, I'm almost willing to bet that it will grow large enough over the next, say, five years, to meet the requirements laid down in Article V to at least initiate a Federal Convention for proposing amendments, if not see it through to its end.

So here's my question for all the strong advocates of the FMA. If we must have a Federal Marriage Amendment, wouldn't it be better for the States to force Congress to call a Convention on the subject, than for the people to pressure the federal Congress to pass the FMA; isn't this the more (to borrow from Lydia) prudent approach to which our advocacy of a Federal Marriage Amendment, if we must have one, should be directed?

Read More

Bob Struble on homosexual "marriage" and Judicial Usurpation

Robert Struble is the author of the interactive book Treatise on Twelve Lights. Mr. Struble and I have had, since I first learned of his book a couple of years ago, several short email discussions, interrupted by long pauses in our communications, concerning his proposals for restoring the republic. A few days ago Mr. Struble interrupted the latest long pause in our communications sending me an email in which he asks that I take a look at his article concerning the recent CA Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage, and to "pass it on" if I am so inclined. Well, I am so inclined, so I excerpt a few passages from the article here:

Mr. Struble Writes:

In California the state Supreme Court has radically undermined a key support of public morality, marriage between man and woman. By a 4-3 vote, in a decree issued on the Ides of May, 2008, the judicial branch welded base metal into a crucial buttress of American culture. Together with a similar measure imposed by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, this dual challenge to our marriage laws is more dangerous and menacing by far than the temporary success in introducing harems into 19th century Utah.

This new adventure in judicial activism creates not just a moral calamity, but also a constitutional crisis in that it undermines the rule of law. I'm especially struck at how such legislation from the bench contradicts John Adams' famous definition of a republic as "a government of laws, not men." If four men, or rather two men and two women, can nullify established law and substitute their own preferences, then we no longer have a republic of laws. In his dissent to the ruling (pp. 1, 5-6 [127ff], concurred in by Justice Ming Chin), Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the decision “violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.” Continued Justice Baxter:

… a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

In November, hopefully, the voters of California will get a chance to reverse “this exercise in legal jujitsu.” (Baxter, p. 7) If successful this effort would restore the definition of marriage in California law, as enacted by the Legislature in 1977. Almost a quarter century later, in the year 2000, California’s voters passed proposition 22 by the margin of 61-39%. Both forms of legislating, via the people and through the state legislature, had defined marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman.

This latest case of amending the constitution by adjudication makes clear that the neo-pagan elites are not willing to let the American people have their way on basic social/moral issues. It is not us, the American citizens, but rather our cultural commissars who intend to decide such questions. Apparently their presiding paradigm is "democracy be damned if it gets in the way" of the social-engineering projects of their postmodernist revolution. Over 4.6 million voters approved Proposition 22, or 1.15 million times the number of oligarchs (four) who imposed same-sex marriage on the state. So much for “the consent of the governed” proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

The California case is more threatening to America’s moral integrity than the phenomenon in Massachusetts, in that residency is required to marry in the Bay State, but people from anywhere can marry in California. The newlyweds could then sue back in their home state to have their same-sex “marriages” validated under the full faith and credit clause.

What strikes me particularly is Justice Baxter's dissenting remarks excerpted above. I wrote about this fundamental change in the definition and conditions of marriage and thus to the marriage contract a few days ago in an entry at this blog. The term "marriage" has been redefined by this rogue court as a "long-term" union between "consenting adults". Thus the normal meaning of marriage as a binding contract between a man and a woman in which they pledge to each other (exclusive to all others) mutual affection and support, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in heath, till death parts them is disastrously undone by the court's introduction of new terms in the marriage contract which undermine and contradict the very basis on which the court depends for the validity of its articulation of the inestimable glories of the marriage institution. Thus apparently the court believes it can fundamentally alter (destroy) the meaning of the term marriage to admit homosexuals without destroying the glories, of which it writes in its opinion, of the marriage institution. I therefore declare this court to be collectively insane.

But anyway, with respect to Mr. Struble's book, I thought that some of you might want to check it out. If you're so inclined, you may connect to the ToTL main page via the link to Struble's article which I've provided above.

Read More

Marriage cont.

In connection with the discussion on homosexual "marriage," John Savage turned me on to this article posted at TakiMag. The main objective of the writer may be summed up in his concluding paragraph. He writes:

“Traditionalists” have it all backwards. Marriage isn’t in decline; it has instead been glorified beyond all recognition. The only way back to traditional marriage may be to allow same-sex marriage without protest. Let marriage first be deflated. Then perhaps it can be restored.

The rest of the article goes about to establish the author's foregoing assertions. As evidence that the institution of marriage is overly exalted in modern society, Mr. Bramwell quotes from the CA Supreme Court's (a reliable source for the general opinion of moderns, I'm sure) infamous opinion in the recent homosexual marriage case. In its opinion the court declared that marriage is:

[T]he most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime. The ability of an individual to join in a committed, long-term, officially recognized family relationship with the person of his or her choice is often of crucial significance to the individual’s happiness and well-being. The legal commitment to long-term mutual emotional and economic support that is an integral part of an officially recognized marriage relationship provides an individual with the ability to invest in and rely upon a loving relationship with another adult in a way that may be crucial to the individual’s development as a person and achievement of his or her full potential.

First of all, I'd personally like to know on what evidence exactly the Court is relying for its dogmatic, overly enthusiastic statements on marriage? One must assume, given that homosexual "marriage" was, before this ruling, illegal and non-existant, that the court is basing its exalted view of the marriage institution entirely on heterosexual examples, and imputing those examples to homosexuals, as if homosexuals have the same capacity as heterosexuals to engage in successful marriages. Talk about serving up a crock full of equality b.s.!

Beyond that, look at the way the Court subtly yet significantly redefines marriage to be just another all-inclusive institution. Marriage, according to the court, is no longer a "lifelong" commitment, but merely a "long-term" commitment. Of course the court gives us no indication of what it means by the term "long-term," so I assume it could mean any "extended" period of time. Do I smell a rat here?; is someone purposely being liberal with its ambiguity? What is self-evident and non-ambiguous about the term, however, is what the term does not mean -- a lifelong commitment. I suggest to you that the court knows full well that homosexuals are uniquely incapable of upholding the terms of traditional marriage, and therefore, as an advocate of homosexual "marriage", found it incumbent upon itself to destroy yet another foundational principle of marriage for the sake of its favored group.

So, is Mr. Bramwell correct in his assertion that Tradionalists have it all wrong; that we err in defending the exaltation and exclusivity of marriage? Is he right in saying that marriage has been "glorified beyond all recognition?" Well, if you want to call the court's written expression of its opinion a glorification of the sacred institution of marriage, then I suppose his opinion carrys some weight with you. But I for one do not view the court's opinion as he does. Yes; the court uses glowing language in its pronouncements on the glories of the marriage institution, but I submit to you that the more important issue in the court's decision is its overthrow of a concept which has always attended any traditional idea of marriage; that the court's exalted expressions on the institution of marriage are at once rendered meaningless by its destruction of a principle without which the glories of marriage could never have been fully realized or written about.

One indication that marriage is indeed in a state of decline, is that the court succeeded in inserting, in the midst of all its flowery language, a fundamental change in the conditions of marriage from lifelong commitment to "long-term" commitment and that this fundamental change evidently escaped Bramwell's keen sense of the low state that is the defining mark of traditional marriage.

Read More

Is childless Marriage beneficial to society?

(Note: In connection with this post, please read Lawrence Auster's entry on the extreme radicalism of homosexual marriage. Scroll down and read Dana W.'s remarks and LA's reply to Dana on no-fault divorce, an issue I thought about adding to this entry but ultimately decided against.)

MARRIAGE, n. The act of uniting a man and a woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and a woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.(emphasis mine)

(Definition taken from Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language)

Contrast Webster's definition with an opinion expressed at Savage's blog on the purpose of marriage and why government benefits related to marriage should be strictly tied to having children. (Admittedly, when you start talking about government benefits passed out to folks who meet certain government-established criteria, I start to get a little nervous. As they say, "there ain't nothin' free," so one has to decide whether the rewards outweigh the costs. I think generally they don't when it comes to government favors.)

My parenthetical remarks aside, though, do you think that government benefits related to marriage should be reserved only to those married (husband and wife, male and female, man and woman) couples who have offspring; that government benefits for married couples should be tied to having children? That seems to be the consensus of some at BNWW and elsewhere. John quotes commenter Robert Hume from the Inductivist who writes in favor of this view:

The main purpose of marriage in modern times is as a support system for children. The state grants benefits to married folk in order to help raise children well.

It used to be that all married people had children, so the benefits were not mis-allocated. But now many heterosexual couples do not have children, so they reap benefits to which they are not entitled.

So homosexuals have noted that there were benefits that they could not get that heterosexuals could get … without carrying the responsibility of caring for children.

In this case homosexuals have a good “equal protection” argument.

The solution is to modify the law to tie marriage benefits to having children, not to being married.

The presumption is that society reaps little or no benefits from the institution of marriage except those which are directly related to the having and raising of children, and therefore, since society derives no appreciable benefits from the institution of marriage aside from the production of offspring, and since homosexuals can't have children which are a product of both partners, all government favors related to marriage must be changed to apply strictly to marital reproduction. So you've essentially killed two birds with one stone in Hume's opinion; you've stopped the mis-allocation of government marriage benefits to people who are not entitled to them (childless couples), and you've prevented by the same stroke homosexual marriages.

I simply have to disagree with this. Marriage between a man and a woman is beneficial to society in precisely the ways that Webster lays forth in his definition of the term -- it helps to prevent the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and promotes domestic happiness. So, while I'm not saying that government benefits related to marriage should be equal across the board (unless they're equally zero), I am saying that marriage between men and women is beneficial to society apart from having children. And if society is going to reward people for their particular contribution to the general welfare and encourage its continuance, it ought to reward childless married couples for theirs.

Read More

Attention California Citizens!

Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent, or, for that matter, someone with no political affiliation, if you care about protecting the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman against the aggressive attempts of liberal extremists and homosexual activists and lobbying groups, and, yes, even that of your own duly elected legislature and courts, to destroy the fundamental institution of civil society, then here's your opportunity to join the building coalition of citizens of 27 other states in this union who have already taken the matter into their own hands, and thus out of the hands of those various entities whose common mission in life, more often than not, is to destroy the foundation on which your liberty itself and its perpetuation depends.

Read More

Conservative values ain't dead yet in America!

Indeed, when it comes to protecting the sacred institution of marriage, traditional marriage between one man and one woman, this conservative value is alive and well and gaining in strength ... State by blessed State.

I reported at this site some months back, as I recall, that seventeen States in this union had passed their own marriage amendments protecting traditional marriage, and I even provided a link confirming this number. Well, apparently I was way off on my numbers, as documented here by our friends at CitizenLink.

I don't think I've ever been more pleased to realize that I was wrong than when I learned, just moments ago, of these updated numbers. And by the way, I'm well pleased to be able to offer what I consider to be very good news during a time when there seems to be so little to be encouraged about.

And now, to all our friends in Arizona, I'm encouraged by the news that, as the first state to have rejected a proposed marriage amendment to your constitution, you're now reconsidering the question. As I've argued many many times before, the best and most secure and enduring method of returning to anything even remotely resembling our original and legitimate structure of government, is for the state and local authorities to begin to pick up the slack where the national government has either abrogated its authority, or, has shown itself utterly incapable of protecting basic fundamental societal values and institutions. In my opinion the Federal Marriage Amendment was never a good idea, but I'm also convinced that the question, raised as it was at the federal level, is largely responsible for the number of States which have since created and passed their own marriage amendments to their state constitutions.

Here's hoping that the trend contiues.

Read More

Hoosiers don't care about marriage?

Here's a story from CitizenLink on the state of Indiana's Marriage Amendment Proposal. It looks like it's hung up in the State legislature where, if it is killed, as seems to be the promise and intention of some in that body, the proposal will not be on this year's ballot for the Indiana voters to decide.

From the article:

Supporters of same-sex "marriage" say Hoosiers don’t care about marriage and are focused on property tax reform.

I have one thing to say about this statement. If this is the case, then why are you supporters of same sex "marriage" (a contradiction in terms) expending such effort in trying to kill the proposal? It seems to me that if the Indiana voters truly do not care about marriage, traditional marriage, and the protection thereof by lawful amendment to the Indiana Constitution, then you'd certainly want it on this year's ballot so that the voters in Indiana could reject the proposal, overwhelmingly I'm sure, and get on with that business that they truly care about, namely property tax reform, as you claim.

But I'd be willing to bet that when polled on this question of protecting marriage, Indiana voters support amending their State Constitution by a margin of somewhere around 65% to 35% give or take a few percentage points, and this is precisely why you're working so hard to kill this amendment. Let's be honest, eh?

Read More

The extent to which homosexuals will go to push their agenda knows no bounds;

The extent to which liberalism will go to push its non-discrimination policies knows no bounds. And that's the reason both have to be stopped.

Case in point? Two same-sex divorce cases filed in States which do not recognize same-sex marriages; Oklahoma, and Rhode Island. You may read the story here.

When there are no limits to what a group will do to achieve its objectives, and there are no limits to what an ideology will do to help it achieve its objectives, and there's no opposing force strong enough to resist either in the advancement of their pursuits, then the society which made the rise of them both to positions of normality and prominance possible must collapse on itself if it doesn't impose restrictions on these destructive practices.

End of initial post.

Read More

Legislating from the Bench

Here's a story brought to us from the folks over at CitizenLink. It seems like the Maryland judiciary consists of a number of judges who believe that their opinions supersede the acts of the State legislature, and that they can overturn Maryland State law whenever they deem it to be unconstitutional.

Now, I don't know how this law was passed; whether it was passed by the legislature of the State of Mayland, or by popular referendum, or whatever; I simply do not know the internal workings of the State of Maryland. But whenever you've got a situation where the judiciary believes itself to be the final lawmaking body within a State, or the nation, for that matter, you don't need a constitutional amendment to protect the law from the legislature. What you need is a convention to redefine the boundaries of the respective powers of government, and to whom, and under what conditions, you are delegating and entrusting those powers, with punishments for the violation thereof.

Read More

Custer's Rout of the Indians at the Battle of Little Bighorn?

Over at John Savage's blog under this title there is a discussion in the comments section about Americans not knowing well their own genealogy. I agree with both John, and VA that this is most probably and widely the case among Americans, including myself which I'm somewhat embarrassed by as well as ashamed of.

Here's a personal story in this vein that you might find interesting, perhaps even one to which some of you can in some way relate...

When I was about six or seven years old is the farthest recollection I have of Dad making me aware of my native American heritage. This is kind of a funny story and I recall it often attaching a lot of humor to it, though I think there are some serious aspects to it as well.

At that time some of you may recall that capitalist American toy manufacturers and retailers had seized upon what I suppose must have been a good deal of interest amongst the American population in the history of Custer's last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

My recollection of this phase of Americans becoming interested in some of their post-civil-war history is best explained I think in the fact that Mom had purchased for me an action figure of Col. Custer himself, along with his horse and other bells and whistles. My best recollection is that it wasn't long thereafter that Dad brought me a counterpart to this action figure – either “Crazy Horse,” or “Sitting Bull,” most probably. Dad of course had an ulterior motive for providing me with the toy, and one in direct opposition, not necessarily to Mom's motive (I highly doubt that Mom had one to begin with other than just providing me with something I wanted most likely), but to her specific gift which I had probably requested.

Despite the true history of the Battle of Little Bighorn, my childhood replays of the battle always had Custer's regiment triumphant over the Indians. That's the way I wanted it to be, and since they were my toys I could play it out however I wanted to, or so I thought...

I remember one day while Col. Custer and company were thoroughly routing their Indian nemeses, Dad stopped me in the midst of my fun and began to explain to me that 'that's not the way it happened at all.' He further went on to ask me why it was that I preferred the Custer doll over that of the Indian he had provided me? This question of Dad's was prompted by the fact that I generally took very good care of the Custer doll and his horse. The Indian companion piece Dad had provided me was not so fortunate as that, however. I didn't have a very good answer, and it was really kind of a confusing question for me, in retrospect.

Looking back on it now, I would assume that my mind had been impressed with these ideas through different forms of media, as well as from the warring factions between my parents on this issue. I can't explain exactly why Dad's preference in this regard did not take well with me. I always thought of my Dad as being something of a 'larger than life' figure, and virtually everything he told me I took to be absolute and unadulterated truth. But in this particular an exception to that rule was very obviously noticeable, and Dad of course picked up on it and began to try to counter it with some extensive educational efforts on his part.

After Dad had that initial talk with me I remember trying to play the battle out to more conduce to the way that he had explained to me that it actually happened. But after having done so a couple of times I reverted back to my own preference for how the battle should have gone in direct contradiction to what Dad had told me. And I was in no way in the habit of contradicting my dad, nor had I any desire to disappoint him; quite the contrary. But in this case my personal preference proved to be just too strong to overcome. Of course, I was careful from there on out to have the Indians winning whenever Dad was around. And Dad and I entered upon a game of pretended preferences for several years thereafter.

I think the point of this story, besides my attempting to provide you with a good chuckle, is that even to this very day I have a strong bias in favor of my European heritage and over that of what little Indian blood I actually have running through my veins. As a matter of putting our history back in what I would consider its proper context, I think there's a largely neglected need for individuals like myself to express their true preferences, not succumbing to the pc pressure of always esteeming the poor, hapless Indians as having been manipulated, raped, pillaged, murdered and robbed at the hands of the true savages - the 'white devil invaders.'

I tend more to view 'ownership' in the way that Locke explained it, which is to say that the earth was given to man in common, but to establish a true ownership of anything thereof, one must invest that which may be reduced to his and his alone – his labor. Personally I have a hard time accepting the idea that occupation in and of itself establishes ownership in any 'American' sense of the word. I mean, I could go set up camp on a given piece of property, but the great likelihood is that the owners thereof – those who have invested their labor in the acquisition of that property – when they find me out, are going to do whatever is necessary to have me removed, as well they should.

I need a better explanation than 'the Indians occupied this land first' to convince me that they had established ownership of it entirely to the exclusion of anyone else. I don't deny that the Indians were wronged in some respects, but nor do I unquestionably accept the apparent conventional wisdom that the white devils wronged them in all respects, and that we're now occupiers of a land ill-gained. That to me is just a bunch of emotionally based hogwash, the logical conclusion of which makes me ill to stomach, to be frank.

In any event, Dad and I still have these conversations from time to time. He's not as apt as he used to be to try to convince me against my preferences and against my better judgment, but he still sticks largely to his guns on this issue. I suppose this issue will always be a point of contention between us, given that neither of us is likely to change his mind anytime soon. But for those of you who tend to take Dad's side on this question, and particularly those of you having also an attachment to the Christian faith, I would respectfully remind you, as I have Dad on occasion, that our Lord and our God must be extremely offended by an abject denial of that heritage of ours which actually resulted in 'securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves.'

These ideas of God, man, and government are traceable back to our European roots, not to the original occupiers of this land of ours. These ideas are most probably responsible for 'securing the blessings of liberty' on an individual and a collective level to the most people and generations history has heretofore ever recorded. Our European heritage is directly responsible for the blessings we enjoy, yet so easily dismiss today as a matter of luck. And as we ride upon the backs of our forefathers and mothers, we tend at the same time to dishonor them in denying that vital part of our unique heritage.

Lord forgive us, for we know not what we do.

-DW

Read More

Entertainment Media - A 'Carnival' Atmosphere

I hope and trust y'all will not mind my going in something of a different direction temporarily until I get myself caught up on what's been happening on the blogosphere (or my chosen corner of it - btw, it's ok to refer to a given section of a 'sphere' as a 'corner', just think of it in Biblical terms and we'll be alright) during my four or five day absence. At the moment of the writing of these words I've now been online for about two hours reading a few entries from other blogs (Vanishing American in particular) and I find myself rather struck by how quickly information is disseminated across this medium.

Much in contrast to the soap opera style 'news' and 'information' shows on today's mass media outlets where one may return after a long stint away and generally take up right where he/she left off weeks, months, or even years before, my chosen corner of the 'blogosphere' is a different baby altogether, as y'all well know. And this entry will be dedicated to speaking to that topic...

Over at VA's is posted a Monday entry on this very topic: Fluff and nonsense. VA notes in the post that though there is certainly an element of demand for what is termed 'cotton candy news,' in spite of that she also encounters, as I do, a lot of people of different walks, educational backgrounds and so forth, who generally despise this kind of 'news.' This causes her to question on some level why it is that the MSM engages itself in this kind of insignificant news coverage.

Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the education and experiences of the media people themselves. In short, it's what they know, all they know, and all they've ever known. And when there's a shortage, or a perceived shortage of 'newsworthy' stories to cover, these media outlets invariably revert back to what they know and understand best - entertainment.

Of course VA is discussing in the post a general problem across the MSM, but she does mention two specific examples - Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton - of the MSM's incessantly engaging itself in this kind of 'news coverage,' and she wonders on some level why this is. I think the 'cotton candy' euphemism is an appropriate one, and if we take thought to where it oughta lead us, it strikes up a pretty fitting analogy as well I should think.

We've often heard today's 'news' and news coverage referred to as a circus. But a carnival or a fair might be a better way of describing it in some instances. There is an atmosphere as well there should be at these carnivals of fun and entertainment. We associate certain ideas with certain things, and the carnival atmosphere is meant to be one of fun and entertainment. But why is it that news coverage seems to be increasingly more 'entertainment' oriented at the expense of the dissemination of knowledge of the useful kind?

I've said this before but I'll repeat it here. I think this is a more pervasive 'trend' than many of us realize. It seems to me to touch virtually everything; this 'entertainment' style of the sharing of information and knowledge. Those of us who complain about it are simply not interested in those kinds of 'facts,' or that kind of 'news' because we see it for what it is - irrelevant to real news and current events.

Now, I'll say here that I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is from Adam. I do know who Paris Hilton is because I've heard her name mentioned countless times. But beyond her being the heiress to the Hilton hotel dynasty (or whatever it is) and the fact that she was recently jailed for some kind of personal misdeed, I know very little of her as well, and that's the way I'd prefer to keep it so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to educate me on this point. lol But my main point here is that I for one am apt to know a lot more about some relatively obscure character in American history, what they did and didn't do, and so on, than I'll ever likely know about Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton despite the MSM's incessant coverage of these irrelevant types.

And what I mean to say here is that I'm not nearly as comfortable in the carnival atmosphere as I used to be. That kind of 'fun and entertainment' is to me reserved for special and limited occasions. While I'm there and while I'm purposely seeking entertainment and pleasure I'm also willing to pay exorbitant prices for cotton candy and candied apples, and etc., as well as to pay twenty or thirty dollars for a fifty cent toy in a 'game of chance' where the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the carnival and against the individual player. I'm willing to do this because I seek entertainment in that instance, but that instance is very short-lived.

The same principle applies I think to the media and the kind of news it generates nowadays. I only wish to be 'entertained' occasionally, and it's on those limited occasions that I'm willing to pay the exorbitant rates that go with that entertainment. This probably explains why I don't particularly care for cable news. Occasionally I'll turn it on when I get the hankering to be entertained. But having been thoroughly entertained over the course of a couple of hours or so, then I'm generally good for weeks or even months.

I suppose, on the other hand, that this form of media (the blogosphere) might be said to be a form of 'entertainment' itself. And that some of us just prefer this kind of entertainment to that which the MSM engages itself in providing. In this case the MSM has its audience and participants, and the blogosphere has its audience and participants, and both have their games and sideshows that draw and captivate the attention of the attendees and observers. And in this case it all depends on what interests the individual attendee; does he prefer to shoot darts at a wall full of balloons at a dollar a dart, or had he rather shoot a basketball into undersized hoops, or to toss rings onto bottle necks, or whatever?

VA devotes most of her thoughts on this to the idea that the 'educational' establishment has more or less contributed to the desire among many to be entertained in this manner and in this kind of a 'carnival' atmosphere. People are generally going from game to game, bag of cotton candy in hand, seeking to be entertained at the expense of seeking out and desiring useful knowledge. And I think that this all begins at home where parents, seeking entertainment and fun themselves above all, and working a significant number of hours (for those who actually do still count it their duty to provide for their own entertainment) to satisfy their desire to be entertained, pass this on to their children who grow up in a home atmosphere where self-indulgence is paramount to everything else. Then they attend schools and churches where this self-indulging entertainment values system is promoted and encouraged as well.

But I would make a great distinction between the two forms of 'entertainment' if in fact both may be described on some level as such. True, I'm entertained by what goes on in this corner of the blogosphere much more that what goes on throughout the MSM. But I'm not simply entertained by this, nor is it simply entertainment that I seek in frequenting it. No; what I seek overall is to absorb and to disseminate useful knowledge. And this more or less determines what blogs I find to be interesting, and what blogs I find to be less than interesting. Generally speaking, if the contents amount to little more than an extension of what the MSM is providing, then your blog isn't going to interest me much. I can be entertained that way through that source if that's what I seek. But if that's the kind of 'entertainment' your blog is intended to provide, you're going to have a hard time competing with the 'big boys.'

In any event the question still remains, why is it that the MSM engages in this kind of 'entertainment news' so frequently? And as I said before, I think part of the reason lies in the fact that this is all they know; this is the kind of 'news' that the MSM and most the folks involved have been used to providing for decades now, and it's just natural that they'd revert to it very frequently when they feel there is a shortage of 'newsworthy' stories out there to report on. It's also notable that to the MSM that which is considered 'newsworthy' would be determined by their predispositions about the value of a given piece of news. While I may question the value of reporting incessantly on the personal misdeeds of one Miss Lindsay Lohan, who is just a name to me, I think that the MSM folks may well believe that their interest in Lindsay Lohan translates to our interest in her. If they think it newsworthy to report on her life, then we must think it newsworthy as well, right? Wrong!

I could give a hoot about what Lindsay Lohan is doing these days, whoever she might be. But if you wish to discuss with me the goings on with folks who have an impact on all of our lives to some extent or the other, then I'm likely to be more attentive.

But since I have a very short day ahead of me today, as far as my work goes, I'll be back in a couple of hours to post a couple more items as well as to continue to play some more catch-up on the blogosphere. Until then, y'all be good and keep on entertaining yourselves with useful information and knowledge.

-DW

Read More

Reflections on a childhood gaff...

I remember one Christmas in particular when I was about twelve or thirteen I had asked for a new bicycle. Back then money was a little tight and a new bicycle was an item that was somewhat hard to come by. And though I didn't really expect to get one, I nonetheless had hopes that maybe, just maybe I would get one this Christmas.

At this time Mom and Dad had divorced, both having subsequently remarried. I lived with Dad while my younger siblings lived with Mom. In the small town where Dad and I lived my great uncle on Dad's side (who passed away recently, incidentally) owned a hardware store still bearing his name today where Dad and I would frequently (almost daily) stop in for a visit with my uncle, if not to pick up some needed item.

My uncle, having served in the Navy during WWII, and having gone to battle with the Japanese himself sustaining several injuries as well as witnessing the death of some of his friends and comrads during these battles, had lots of lingering misgivings and ill-feelings toward the state of Japan. And at the time of this particular Christmas -around 1977 or 1978- our trade relations with the state of Japan had improved to the point that it seemed virtually everything was now 'Made in Japan.'

Dad and my great uncle often expressed their displeasure with this movement toward trading with the Japanese, referring often to Japanese made products as 'junk,' or more specifically "Jap-Junk." Japanese made cars and motorcycles, as an example, were referred to as "Jap-Junkers." And to be frank, much of it was in actuality "junk."

As I recall I spent this particular Christmas Holiday at Mom's house. And I remember very well seeing that brand new bike sitting in front of the tree on that most memorable Christmas morning. I was so excited and pleased to see it that I could barely contain myself. Indeed, Mom had worked and saved to provide me and my siblings with the best of gifts we could ever have hoped for. And while I can't recall the exact timeline of the events as they transpired this Christmas morning, I do recall very well an incident taking place which I still have much regret about...

At some point that morning I set aside all my other gifts to focus my undivided attention on that most excellent of gifts I had received, my new bike. And as I was giving her a good going over, quietly noting each and every minor imperfection in her most beautiful whole contruction, I eventually ran across a stamped impression in the frame somewhat concealed by paint which read: "Made In Japan." At which point, unaware of my surroundings, I let out a disgusted: "It's a Jap-Junker!," along with some other bits of poorly chosen verbiage such as "it's gonna fall apart on me," and the like. I was soon to regret those words.

The problem was that Mom, deriving a great deal of pleasure from quietly observing my close and excited inspection of her gift, was attentively watching every move and listening to all the 'oohs and ahs' I was uttering up to that fateful point. And I can hardly recall a moment in my life that ever I felt so low as that moment at which I realized how hurtful this exclamation of mine was to her, unintentionally so as it was.

At length the story of this unfortunate incident made its way back to Dad who promptly sat me down and gave me some much needed instruction on bridling my tongue, as well as of being more attentive to my surroundings, and of course thinking before I actually speak. And Dad's very obvious disapproval as well as his disappointment in what I had done was enough in and of itself to sink my sense of worth to the depths of self-loathing. But I think perhaps the best lesson was in seeing and realizing how hurtful this had been to Mom, who had put so much effort into providing us with with some very memorable gifts that Christmas among others. It was incidents like that one which finally led to my realization of what a sorry piece of self-indulgent work I truly was.

But one of the happy endings to the story is that the new bicycle proved to be an extreme exception to my ill-expressed perceptions as to its quality and durability as it provided me with miles and miles of riding pleasure, not to mention enduring some extensive measure of abuse and neglect. And how, you may be asking, did I account for that most notable attribution stamped into its framework? Well, as I recall I purchased a sticker of an American flag and placed it over the offending revelation. "Out of sight, out of mind." lol

-DW

Read More

On the Eve of Evedom

Many moons ago, around the time that I finally began to wake up and to realize that I might oughta get more serious about life (that was about the time that I joined the military), I began to immerse myself in the study of what became for me a genuine love, almost an obsession - the study of American History, particularly early American History.

This being for me an absolutely independently sought out endeavor given that it was really the only way in which I knew of or had the means to pursue it, there was no real outside influence to speak of leading me to the pursuit of what I'd call now 'revisionist history.' Oh, prior to this stage of my life I had made short work of a pursuit for higher learning at a two-year college relatively near my home. And there it was that I enrolled in an 'American History' course wherein the professor - who was very good at proffessing...his view of American History - and I got off on the wrong foot from day one.

I'm going to pause and throw some props over Dad's way here because as I've noted on occasion over at the greater blog, during my upbringing he was very good at dropping little bits of wisdom here and there perfectly suited to the stage of development that my mind and my deportment had reached at a given moment. Dad, being a very capable educator in my opinion, seemed to have had an innate understanding about how best to communicate an idea to an unrefined mind and to cultivate the seeds of knowledge he had so early planted in what I hope may be said to have been 'good ground.'

Of course, what I was getting at with regard to my college profess-or is that he was rather a liberal sort of fellow, and my dad being the excellent father he was (and is) had at least prepared me enough to recognize that more or less instinctively. So from about the third day or so of attending his classes, I pretty much wasn't listening to anything he had to 'profess' except as it gave me cause and opportunity to challenge his assertions.

Before I go too far here though, I want to turn y'all on to yet another intriguing piece you should at least find interesting, if not altogether absorbing. As for me I certainly found myself becoming more and more of the latter as I read VA's take on the situation. And to wet your appetites just a bit here, I'll insert an excerpt from her excellent post; says she:

One of the liberal ideas which has taken hold in our society is that any difference or separation is 'discrimination' and a violation of the principle of equality, which principle must be absolute. This is a bad idea which has had far-reaching consequences. We have re-interpreted equality to mean absolute sameness, which is not possible, whether between races and ethnicities and nationalities or between men and women. It was not discrimination to have all-male schools or clubs, or all-female schools. And division of labor was simply a common sense way to divide up the necessary work: women excelled at certain things, and preferred certain tasks, and these were the 'women's work.' And yes, there are always exceptions who feel at odds with the traditional roles, but a few exceptions, no matter what liberals say, do not justify throwing out all the rules.

Certainly we all have our own personal experiences which tend to create in us certain predispositions on various subjects. And my case in this regard is no different than anyone else's. But I'm ever mindful of and thankful for all those little seeds of wisdom Dad was so very capable of planting in my youthful mind, because later on they would come to bear, if I may be so bold as to say it, some pretty good fruits.

One of the seeds that Dad early planted in my mind was that 'this nation was originally founded on Christian principles,' and that's about the extent to which the idea developed during my formidable years. Dad was not as concerned with giving me specific examples -and looking back on it I don't know that they would have taken anyhow- as much as he was with establishing a broader context for the idea which he seems to have rightly calculated would likely lead to an independent investigation of the matter for myself when I was more ready to absorb it.

Eventually I most certainly was led to make some independent discoveries therein which at length caused me to further investigate my faith as well. And I can claim without the slightest reservation that I never learned so much about the Christian faith in church as I did in investigating America's early history, by a long shot even. I certainly don't want you to misread what I'm saying here. I'm NOT saying stop attending church. I am saying though that American churches are more or less corrupted these days particularly in the way in which they tend to avoid making the irrefutable connection between their profession of faith and its early and significant influence on Americanism.

In VA's piece posted over at her blog, I think she identifies one way in which the church in America has indeed succumbed to the pressure of radical feminism. And that I may describe here, for lack of a better way of putting it, as attempting to make 'equals' of men and women in all things. As VA writes, and as my experience certainly confirms, women tend to be more 'emotional' than men, or to rely more on their emotional take on a given situation than are men who tend to be less emotional and more inclined to reason through a matter. Of course I'm speaking in generalizations here, and I certainly do not deny the exception to the rule on both sides of the equation. But as has been said before, it's a poor policy to govern according to the exception.

I'm purposely trying to avoid adding anything to what VA has already said because I'd really just like for you to go over and read her wonderfully 'masculine' post on the subject. But I can hardly keep from giving at least my 'two cents worth,' with regard to 'church and state' and the worldview responsible for this nation's founding...

We read early on in the Holy Scriptures that it was 'not good that man should be alone,' and that God in turn made him an help meet for him. As far as our reading of the account goes, it is not long after this that man's helper (woman) is separated from her husband wondering about in the garden of Eden all alone. And it is in this wondering vulnerability that the serpent approaches and eventually beguiles Eve in the absence of her husband. And it was all an emotional thing as the devil knew that Eve, being the weaker vessel and having likely received her instruction on God's prohibitions from her husband, was the much more approachable of the two given that Adam had received his instruction directly from God.

Essentially, Satan knew that the way to corrupt the whole of the human race was to cause Adam to sin, and the easiest way to do that was to go through his wife who was much more capable than Satan was of beguiling Adam, at least in a direct sort of way. And in light of VA's piece on the subject, doesn't it seem that there are some real parallels between the biblical story of original sin and that of the ongoing saga of our women more or less wondering about in the American garden independently of their husbands? Might we eventually, as were our original parents, be banished therefrom? Time will tell, I suppose.

This'n oughta be fun...

-DW

Read More

Survey Says?...

Here's an AP story that's just got me utterly confused:

NEW YORK (AP) -- The percentage of Americans who consider children ''very important'' to a successful marriage has dropped sharply since 1990, and more now cite the sharing of household chores as pivotal, according to a sweeping new survey.

The Pew Research Center survey on marriage and parenting found that children had fallen to eighth out of nine on a list of factors that people associate with successful marriages -- well behind ''sharing household chores,'' ''good housing,'' ''adequate income,'' a ''happy sexual relationship'' and ''faithfulness.''

In a 1990 World Values Survey, children ranked third in importance among the same items, with 65 percent saying children were very important to a good marriage. Just 41 percent said so in the new Pew survey.
Chore-sharing was cited as very important by 62 percent of respondents, up from 47 percent in 1990.

The survey also found that, by a margin of nearly 3-to-1, Americans say the main purpose of marriage is the ''mutual happiness and fulfillment'' of adults rather than the ''bearing and raising of children.''

The survey's findings buttress concerns expressed by numerous scholars and family-policy experts, among them Barbara Dafoe Whitehead of Rutgers University's National Marriage Project.

''The popular culture is increasingly oriented to fulfilling the X-rated fantasies and desires of adults,'' she wrote in a recent report. ''Child-rearing values -- sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity -- seem stale and musty by comparison.''

Virginia Rutter, a sociology professor at Framingham (Mass.) State College and board member of the Council on Contemporary Families, said the shifting views may be linked in part to America's relative lack of family-friendly workplace policies such as paid leave and subsidized child care.

''If we value families ... we need to change the circumstances they live in,'' she said, citing the challenges faced by young, two-earner couples as they ponder having children.

The Pew survey was conducted by telephone from mid-February through mid-March among a random, nationwide sample of 2,020 adults. Its margin of error is 3 percentage points.
Among the scores of questions in the survey, many touched on America's high rate of out-of-wedlock births and of cohabitation outside of marriage. The survey noted that 37 percent of U.S. births in 2005 were to unmarried women, up from 5 percent in 1960, and found that nearly half of all adults in their 30s and 40s had lived with a partner outside of marriage.
According to the survey, 71 percent of Americans say the growth in births to unwed mothers is a ''big problem.'' About the same proportion -- 69 percent -- said a child needs both a mother and a father to grow up happily.

Breaking down the responses, the survey found some predictable patterns -- Republicans and older people were more likely to give conservative answers that Democrats and younger adults. But the patterns in regard to race and ethnicity were more complex.

For example, census statistics show that blacks and Hispanic are more likely than whites to bear children out of wedlock. Yet according to the survey, these minority groups are more inclined than whites to place a high value on the importance of children to a successful marriage.

The survey found that more than 80 percent of white adults have been married, compared with about 70 percent of Hispanics and 54 percent of blacks. Yet blacks were more likely than whites and Hispanics to say that premarital sex is always or almost always morally wrong.
Among those who have ever been married, blacks (38 percent) and whites (34 percent) were more likely than Hispanics (23 percent) to have been divorced.

Delving into one of the nation's most divisive social issues, the survey found that 57 percent of public opposes allowing gays and lesbians to marry. However, opinion was almost evenly divided on support for civil unions that would give same-sex couples many of the same rights as married couples.

Asked about the trend of more same-sex couples raising children, 50 percent said this is bad for society, 11 percent said it is good, and 34 percent said it made little difference.

On the Net:
Pew Research Center: http://people-press.org//

Y'know, I have to wonder...ummm, I tell ya what, if you all would care to participate, I'd like to hear from you on what you believe some of the problems with this story are. I have a couple of my own ideas about why the survey results came out as they did, but I wonder what your thoughts are. And I can't wait to read 'em.

-DW

Read More