Bullets
Whew, whatta week. This is my first blogging opportunity since last Saturday. * * * * * * * In the interim, I didn't have a chance to post about the significant gay marriage and children study. If you hadn't seen commentary about this study, start with Douthat's piece at the New York Times. The study merely confirms, in my opinion, common sense: “children appear most apt to succeed well as adults ”¦ when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father.” * * * * * * * Received in an email newsletter: Citizens in Middleborough, Mass., voted 183-50 at a town meeting Monday night to impose a $20 fine in hopes of ending an epidemic of “loud, profanity-laden language used by teens and other young people in the downtown area and public parks." Michigan has a similar law on its books, except it applies state-wide and makes swearing a misdemeanor when done in front of women or children. It's no longer enforced, though, because the Michigan Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. * * * * * * * Believe it or not, I support the citizens of Middleborough on this. "What?!" you ask, "but aren't you Mr. Libertarian!?!?!" Well, not really. If you go back and read most of my libertarian rants, they're the rants of a rabid disciple of the principle of subsidiarity. I like the idea local government setting its own standards of behavior. By setting their own standards, they'll attract the people they deserve, whether louses or sages. The benefits of such an approach are legion: towns like Middleborough serve as a laboratory for other towns ("Did it work? Did behavior improve?"), it leaves people with more choices ("Saintly Middleborough or F'in Lowell?"), it gives more variety (a mosaic of color instead of one bland national standard cast over the land by nine tyrants on the bench), it's more in line with the American tradition (Madison and his colleagues wrote the Constitution, not J.S. Mill; moreover, as Willmoore Kendall liked to point out, running someone out of town on a rail is more an American tradition than the open society), it puts power in the hands of people you can reach out and punch, which is always a good thing. * * * * * * * I took my son, Jack, to a basketball exposure camp at Grand Valley State University Tuesday evening. I found a quiet lounge and did some office work. I didn't realize until later that I was sitting in the wrong spot:
I've had a few emails about my decision to delete Monday's post. I meant no offense. Most of the comments were great counter-jabs to my position and really made me think. Here's how I explained my decision to delete to one reader: "I guess there are some things that are sacrosanct in American life. If you question them, you're basically considered a 1950s Communist. It appears I crossed the line in some people's eyes with that post. It's unfortunate. A good friend of mine (who thinks I should vote for Romney) thought the post was great, but he also cautioned me that many people don't welcome dialogue on such an issue (unless a person merely waves the Stars and Stripes, hums "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," and declares fealty to Uncle Sam), so I deleted it. * * * * * * * The worst part about deleting that post? Losing this passage:
But now, government has convinced us that, when it takes our money (or freedom), it's really us taking it from ourselves, so it's not so bad. The entire idea is absolutely absurd, of course: we're taking the money from ourselves? It's similar to the anatomically-impossible intransitive act of self-copulation that has been a favorite insult of the vulgar for many years.
But that's what we're taught: Go tax yourself!
It might have taken me longer to craft that passage alone than the rest of the post combined. You'd think such artistry would give a Communist like me a pass, but this is the blogosphere, not Hollywood.
