Judges [Update: Or Legislators] That Should Be Cashiered

by Smitty

Volokh:

If you buy a card that allows you unlimited access to a city subway system, and you then sell swipes from your card to let others access the subway system on your card, are you guilty of theft? No, says the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Hightower (Dec. 11), because you legitimately own the access that you are selling:

Oh for Crying. Out. Loud. In. The. Dark.

So, one person buys a card, lets everyone else use the system, bankrupting it, and some berobed clown in New York thinks that’s just ducky? Really?

I was called for jury duty, and pled the fact that I was in Afghanistan for not showing. Down the road, if called, I may bluntly tell them during the voir dire that I may have to vote against the legislators, or the judge, if the law or the jurisprudence is sufficiently out to lunch. Isn’t that the point of a trial by jury, to let We The People retain sovereignty in the legal system?

Postmodern silliness is all fine in the privacy of one’s own head. When laws are written or judgements handed down that are utterly stupid, we suddenly discover that the assertion of wisdom on the bench may have been perverted by a pack of godforsaken fools.

Complete Insignificance of This Blog Now Confirmed by Recognized Expert
UPDATE: Necessary Correction

Once you’re deemed “Not Good Enough for BlogCon,” it’s just a matter of time before people decide you’re Not Good for Anything Else.

Hat-tip to A Blog That Matters.

UPDATE: I’m told that the fine print on the “Best Blogs” list explains that contributors to Right Wing News (of which I am one) were not eligible for inclusion on the list, so therefore:

  1. I’m OK with John Hawkiins;
  2. I’m too stupid to read  the fine print; and
  3. I’m still “Not Good Enough for BlogCon.”

Don’t mind the bleeding, Doc. Just give me something for the pain.

UPDATE II: By the way, “Deep Fried Manatees” is an awesome name for a blog, no matter what PETA tries to tell you.

Unprecedented Uprising in Chinese Village Chases Out Communist Party

Malcolm Moore reports from Wukan, China:

For the first time on record, the Chinese Communist party has lost all control, with the population of 20,000 in this southern fishing village now in open revolt.
The last of Wukan’s dozen party officials fled on Monday after thousands of people blocked armed police from retaking the village, standing firm against tear gas and water cannons.
Since then, the police have retreated to a roadblock, some three miles away, in order to prevent food and water from entering, and villagers from leaving. Wukan’s fishing fleet, its main source of income, has also been stopped from leaving harbour.
The plan appears to be to lay siege to Wukan and choke a rebellion which began three months ago when an angry mob, incensed at having the village’s land sold off, rampaged through the streets and overturned cars.
Although China suffers an estimated 180,000 “mass incidents” a year, it is unheard of for the Party to sound a retreat. . . .

Read the whole article, which was sent to me by Bert the Samoan Lawyer in an e-mail with the subject line, “This needs to go viral.” Damn right!

Jeffrey Lord vs. the Paulistas

Driving back today from picking up my twin sons at college — today was the last day of final exams in their first semester — I heard my American Spectator colleague Jeffrey Lord on Sean Hannity’s radio show talking about his war against Ron Paul’s supporters.

It makes my head hurt to think about it, stirring unfortunate memories of internecine feuds between paleocons and neocons stretching back at least 30 years.

My own nuanced take on the situation: Beginning with the Bush 41 administration, the neocons began insisting not merely on their own dominance within the Republican Party, but started demanding that their paleocon adversaries be utterly purged from the ranks. (David Frum, among others, so insisted.) And so it was that, by the time of the Bush 43 administration, there was no one inside the “Big Tent” disposed to say a discouraging word about the prospects for a bloodless conquest of Mesopotamia while also, incidentally, using U.S. armed forces as the necessary means to introduce Pashtun tribesmen to the wonders of Western democracy, including women’s suffrage.

“Hey, Chief, can we have a brief discussion about the concept of ‘imperial overreach’ here?”

You don’t have to think Ron Paul is The Only Hope of the Republic, or be a devout disciple of Lew Rockwell, to say that maybe it would have been helpful if, circa 2002-03, some non-interventionists had been in a position to influence the decision-making process at the White House.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m all in favor of kicking jihadi butt. And I’m not one of these kooks who sits around brooding about the “military-industrial complex,” “international bankers,” et cetera. But isn’t it fair to ask, three years into the Obama Age, if GOP foreign policy got a wee bit hubristic during Bush 43’s presidency?

Mine is a modest criticism, then, of neoconservative influence in U.S. foreign policy, as distinct from the all-out crusade that Jeffrey Lord seems to be pursuing against Ron Paul and the Paulistas. I’m not sure how this started, but here are some recent items by Lord at the Spectator:

Sean Hannity’s interview with Jeffrey Lord — and I only heard a few minutes of it — reminded me of all the reasons why I sometimes hate Sean Hannity, who has a tendency toward a Manichean worldview in which there are always exactly two sides to any argument:

  1. Hannity’s side, and
  2. UN-AMERICAN LEFT-WING RADICAL EVIL!

Having been occasionally accused of “simplistic” politics, I would assert that I am an enigmatic tapestry of layered complexity by comparison to Hanntiy’s accustomed mode of discourse.

Stipulate that Ron Paul’s supporters include legions of monomaniacal fanatics and a certain number of outright Jew-haters. Is it not possible to engage the more decent and rational Paulistas in a discourse leading toward a principled and honorable compromise, so that their energy (and profound opposition to the Welfare State) can be harnessed within a broad-based coalition aimed at defeating the common enemy, Democratic PartyLiberalism?

UPDATE: Speaking of Manichean worldviews — MSNBC compares Mitt Romney to the Ku Klux Klan.

Of course, the KKK never flip-flopped but . . . Never mind.

Newt Staffer Fired for Mormon ‘Cult’ Comment Got a Raw Deal, Source Says

When I blogged about this controversy last night, I realized the story would cut at least three ways:

  1. Gingrich would be hurt by association with a “controversy.” Most people would just hear a blurb about it on TV or radio and absorb the notion that Newt was somehow connected to what would appear to be an unfair attack on his chief rival’s religion.
  2. Romney would be hurt, because the “controversy” would remind a certain number of conservative Christians that Mitt is a Mormon and, yeah, many people have categorized Mormonism as a cult.
  3. Gingrich would be hurt — and here’s the weird two-bumper carom shot — because some conservative Christians would see Newt as a gutless sellout for firing a guy who (in their view) had the courage to speak the truth about “the cult of Mormonism.”

Cui bono? Rick Santorum, of course!

But some friends last night on Twitter pointed out that fired Gingrich staffer Craig Bergman  — speaking in an Iowa focus group last week, the day before he was hired as Newt’s Iowa political director — hadn’t said that he personally believes Mormonism to be a cult. Rather, Bergman was merely describing the beliefs of “a lot of the evangelicals.”

These are two vastly different things. It’s the difference between saying, “Let’s go burn a mosque to celebrate Tim Tebow leading the Broncos to victory over the Patriots” and saying . . .

Well, maybe that’s not the perfect example. But you get the point, and the point is amplified today by the Iowa Republican, the Web site that co-sponsored last week’s focus group:

The controversial comment came in regards to Mitt Romney’s prospects, if he captured the GOP nomination. “There is a national pastor who is very much on the anti-Mitt Romney bandwagon,” Bergman said. “A lot of the evangelicals believe God would give us four more years of Obama just for the opportunity to expose the cult of Mormon…There’s a thousand pastors ready to do that.” . . .
As co-moderator of the focus group, TheIowaRepublican.com believes Bergman was not making a statement that reflected his own views of the Mormon religion, but was relaying what he heard from the “national pastor” referenced in his comment.

In other words: Bergman got screwed.

He wasn’t saying that he has a problem with Romney’s religion. He was saying that many evangelicals — including “a national pastor,” whom he did not name — have a problem with Mormonism, and who can deny that Bergman has acccurately stated a fact?

Furthermore, having studied the subject some years ago, I can attest that many Christian theologians agree that Mormonism should be categorized as a cult. In defense of Mitt Romney, however, I’ll say that liberalism is also a cult, and it’s liberalism that’s taking America to hell in a hurry, so you can judge for yourself which cult poses the greater danger in 2012.

Look, if a Protestant like me can support a papist like Rick Santorum — “papist” being the kind of slur you don’t hear very often in our politically correct age — clearly the crisis is upon us.

In a contested Republican primary, everybody’s got their most favorite and least favorite candidates. For me, Newt Gingrich is down near the bottom of the list — worse than Ron Paul, but better than Jon Huntsman — and your mileage may vary, but I think we can all agree that Obama’s worse than any of the Republicans.

Except maybe Huntsman, who could be the Anti-Christ for all we know.

 

UPDATE: It was rather surprising to me that the very first comment — alas, from our loyal commenter Joe! — was to the effect that it is “offensive” to call Mormonism a cult. (Y’know, if you’re easily offended, this blog will give you a half-dozen reasons a day to be offended, at a minimum.)

Ask yourself this: Why are we required to tolerate atheists, who insist that all Christians are ignorant and deluded propagators of implausible superstition, and yet orthodox Christians are shouted down if they feel obliged to identify heterodox faiths as “cults”?

Why is that so, huh?

Answer: Because we have been, as the apostle Paul said, “conformed to this world,” and have adopted the widespread popular opinion that the greatest danger in American society is posed by those dangerous right-wing Christian theocratic extremists, that’s why.

The faults and failures — both real and imaginary — of traditional Christians have been magnified in the public mind over the course of the past several decades, so that the Christian who merely defends the basic beliefs of his faith is automatically accused of aspiring to “impose his beliefs” on others, among much other mischief and malice attributed to Bible-believers.

Look around you, my fellow Americans. Does it really seem to you as if the greatest danger to our nation is that right-wing Christians might suddenly seize control of government and start imposing their beliefs on society? I think not.

You see that I have attached to this post Amazon links for three books by Christian writers who are critics of Mormonism. Their characterizations of the LDS belief system, and the evidence they adduce, may be perused by any of you, and accepted or rejected as you see fit. I’m not trying to “impose” my own beliefs on anyone, but merely stating that there are — as Craig Bergman was fired for saying — many Christians who categorize Mormonism as a cult. And this categorization is perhaps only important to Christians who consider it their sacred obligation to proclaim the Way, the Hope and the Light.

Secularists are under no such obligation, and I understand that they may be offended by the evangelical impulse. But proclaiming the Gospel is not as “offensive” as, for example, flying jetliners into skyscrapers or strapping plastic explosives to your body and detonating yourself in the middle of a crowded disco. So stop whining about being “offended,” or I’m likely to do something genuinely offensive like posting photos of Helen Thomas.

And you wouldn’t want that, would you?

As far as politics goes, Mitt’s Mormonism bothers me less than RomneyCare. And if you want a Republican presidential candidate who stands solidly for religious freedom, Lisa Graas has a suggestion.

UPDATE II: Linked by Da Tech Guy, Lisa Graas and Daily Pundit — thanks! — and now a Memeorandum thread.

Occupy Wall Street Demonstrations Destroy Jobs for New York Cafe Workers

Waiters, cooks, dishwashers, busboys — they’re the 99% whose economic interests the protesters never gave a damn about:

Milk Street Cafe, the restaurant whose business dried up in the face of the Occupy Wall Street barricades, is shutting down. . . .
Milk Street Cafe’s closure will result in the layoff of 70 workers. That’s on top of the 21 let go in October.

“91 jobs lost thanks to Occupy Wall Street,” says Jeff Quinton of the Quinton Report, who got his first Instalanche today.

Maybe that’s not quite as big as being named Time‘s “Person of the Year,” but a blogger never forgets his first Instalanche.

Feb. 9, 2008: “A bit harsh.”

 

Responsible Elite In ‘A Face In The Crowd’

by Smitty

At the suggestion of Ladd Ehlinger, I took in A Face in the Crowd, a 1957 Kazan flick that is well worth your time. ‘Lonesome’ Rhodes goes from nowhere to national stardom. Andy Griffith is powerful as an Icarian pop culture icon.
The documentary on the DVD includes a couple of interesting quotes from the writer and director:

  • Schulberg: “This movie was really meant as kind of a warning that, with the phenomenon of television, that politics would never be the same.”
  • Kazan, attributed: “There is a cost for everything.”

However, what piqued my interest was the General Haynesworth character. He says, starting at 53:06:

My study of history has convinced me that every strong and healthy society from from the Egyptians on, the mass had to be guided with a strong hand by a responsible elite.

Mention of ‘the mass’ recalls The Crowd, by Gustave Le Bon, a serious study of crowd psychology. Basically, information diffuses poorly in a wad of people. If you’re at a Lady GaGa concert, rumors about whether she will perform the next song dressed in fresh beef cuts, or in a huge flour tortilla worn as a toga, won’t cross the music hall very well. When she comes out on stage, the TV screen will move that crucial information instantly. That’s the difference at which Schulberg was getting.YouTube amplifies the point:

But the crowd has an aggregate pulse, as the information-deprived individuals repeat this or that rumor, or YouTube clips go viral. The beef cuts on Lady GaGa become three strategically placed young baboons, which may or may not be real. Charismatic people like the Lonesome Rhodes character can tap into that aggregate pulse of the crowd, and ride it to fame. Stacy McCain wondered aloud if Huey Long was an inspiration for the Rhodes character, but Wikipedia cites other entertainment names as inspirations. Amusingly, according to IMDB, sombody named Keith Olbermann likes to refer to Glenn Beck as Lonesome Rhodes.

What about this ‘responsible elite’? No less a figure than Jesus of Nazareth noted For the poor always ye have with you. . .. In other words, there will always be poor, rich, and quite a few in between. There is going to be a distribution of wealth, irrespective of whether the Inner Party uses propaganda to reduce everyone else to poverty (while proclaiming wealth), or not.

The thing that matters, if you’ll allow me something like a Gaussian Distribution of wealth, is that there is a current circulating within the distribution. The simple fact of inequality in wealth distribution is neither evil nor escapable. Money cannot be evenly distributed any more than information in a crowd. That there is wealth movement within that distribution, and that people have liberty to move as much or as little as desired, is crucial. There will be a figure in a burqa doing the next song. Lady GaGa, or not?

And so Lonesome Rhodes has a metorotic rise. Talent and opportunity, along with a soulless media machine, propel him to vast heights. Yet Rhodes lacks the maturity and perspective to handle it. The same figure who casually mentions Grand Theft Auto at the beginning of the movie, who uses women cruelly throughout, never grasps that he is the very thing he despises. To ride the meteor successfully requires a strong internal commitment to something both good and external, where the soul is regularly taken for trimming. Rhodes tries using whiskey, but the whiskey uses him instead. For a worked example of my point, take a tour of Graceland and ask whether Elvis handled the fame well, or did his head ‘splode? Would you date Lady GaGa?

Is Glenn Beck a Lonesome Rhodes figure? Beck seems more in touch with the nature of human evil, including the internal portion. Does he constitute a member of a ‘responsible elite’? In the movie, the General seemed more of an oligarch, delegating the messy work of dealing with the mass to Rhodes. No, Beck wants everyone to do the homework, and move as far in the direction of the elite tail of the income distribution as they care to go. This notion of capitalistic opportunity and movement within the income distribution according to merit is an important facet of American Exceptionalism. Lady GaGa is probably not the Postmodern Rhodes, but I’m confident I’ll never know for sure, as my interest really does not extend past a running gag in a blog post.

Dan Riehl might actually find himself agreeing with Keith Olbermann’s point about Glenn Beck.

Mentioned in this post:

I Can’t Understand Why Everyone Hates The New Aristocracy

by Smitty

Rush Limbaugh reviews the skewering given to Chelsea Clinton over a debut that was to Katie Couric what #OccupyResoluteDesk is to Jimmy Carter.

Now she’s 31 years old. She is a statist-in-training. She’s working on her 14th college degree. It’s time to get serious about life now. Her future as a statist will require being good on TV–learning how to become likable and what have you–and so that’s not what this is. This is not about Chelsea Clinton learning how to do news. And, remember, there isn’t news in the news anymore. There’s no news. That’s just that’s not why people turn on the TV. There’s no news. She is dutifully learning the inner workings of television in order to learn how to manipulate it later. That’s all this is. Nobody starts at the top like this unless they’re the daughter of an ex-president who can call in some chits. Nobody starts at the top like this.

You get the meritocracy you demand. The people of the United States, as a whole, haven’t demanded anything other than Statism for so long that its sickening.

Quoting Chelsea, emphasis mine:

As a person and professionally and academically, my grandmother, who passed away at the beginning of November, had a core adage in her life, that life is not about what happens to you but about what you do with what happens to you, and she recently had been cajoling me and challenging me to do more with my life, to lead more of a purposefully public life, that being Chelsea Clinton had happened to me and that I had a responsibility to do something with that asset and opportunity, and telling stories through making a difference, I believe, will be one way to manifest that and I hope to make her proud.

The concept of ‘telling stories’ smacks of ‘narrative’ and the whole Postmodern ‘truth as a social construct’ mumbo-jumbo.

The advice I’d offer Chelsea is to reject everything, return to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western civilization, and go forward with certainty about what matters in life. Consider parenthood. Deal with the fact that you’ve been brought up on shinola, lady, and maybe there will be some hope for you.

via Althouse