MayerBlog: The Web Log of
David N. Mayer

Dog Days Doggerel

As the “lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer” turn into the “dog days” of August, it’s time again for some observations on current developments in politics and popular culture:

n     Justice Roberts

            President Bush again has confounded the Washington political establishment – particularly Democrats and their allies in the news media – with his nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor as the next associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Thankfully, President Bush did not yield to pressure to make his pick “p.c.” – an “affirmative action” appointment of a woman or member of a “minority” group – or a “moderate” lacking any coherent judicial philosophy, like the retiring Justice O’Connor herself.  Instead, Bush picked a man who, by all accounts, is exceptionally well-qualified to serve on the Court – in other words, he picked the best person for the job, regardless of sex or race – and who also seems to be a principled conservative.   

            Let’s hope that this Justice Roberts will not be like the previous Justice Roberts – Owen Roberts, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Herbert Hoover in 1930 and who had been one of the “swing votes” on the Court in the 1930s.  Sometimes siding with the four conservative (or libertarian) justices on the Court, sometimes siding with the four left-liberal justices, that Justice Roberts cast the crucial fifth vote in favor of New Deal legislation that marked the so-called “New Deal Revolution” of 1937, the modern Supreme Court’s abdication of its responsibility to enforce meaningful limits on federal governmental powers.  If, as I sincerely hope, the new Justice Roberts will follow a jurisprudence closer to the libertarian/ conservative originalism of Justice Clarence Thomas than to the moderate mushiness of Justice O’Connor, then he may have just as important a historical role on the Court:  as one of the justices who comprise a new majority that, slowly but surely, will reverse the 1937 “revolution” and restore the Constitution. 

n     Recess! 

            Members of the U.S. Congress have gone home for their August recess, and all Americans again can breathe a sigh of relief that these bozos won’t be up to their usual mischief for the next 30 days or so. 

            Kudos to President Bush for his “in-your-face” recess appointment of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.  Democrat blowhards in the Senate, like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Teddy Kennedy, joined by RINOs like George Voinovich, had been abusing their “advise and consent” power in refusing to confirm Bolton’s nomination.  (Appointment is an executive power, which Article II of the Constitution vests in the president; the Senate’s power to confirm presidential appointments is one of the “checks and balances” designed to help check against the abuse of power; as an exception to the general principle of separation of powers, the Senate’s “advise and consent” power ought to be construed strictly.  That means that unless they need to negative an appointment to prevent political corruption or abuse of power, Senators ought to defer to the president’s choice of appointees -- particularly when it’s an office like ambassador, so directly tied to the president’s broad discretionary authority over foreign relations.)   Bush is entitled to appoint whomever he wants as U.N. ambassador.  And so, when the Senate abuses its confirmation power with a filibuster threat – as it has done with the Bolton nomination – the president is entirely within his constitutional authority to make a recess appointment of Mr. Bolton, which will last until January 2007, when the current Congress adjourns.  (The power to make recess appointments is explicitly given the president by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution; it’s a legitimate power that especially aptly used, as President Bush has used it here, to thwart the Senate’s abuse of its confirmation power.)  

            Sour-grape-eaters may whine all they want about Ambassador Bolton being “damaged goods” who lacks “credibility” because he doesn’t have “the confidence of Congress.”   Obviously, he has the confidence of President Bush, the president who appointed him – and because the Constitution vests the executive power, including full authority over foreign diplomacy, in the President, that’s the only “confidence” any U.S. ambassador ever needs.  He’ll represent the United States just fine.  Let’s hope that everything Bolton’s Senatorial critics said about him being “hard-nosed” and a “bully” is true – because it will take a real bully to deal effectively with Kofi Annan’s corrupt UN.  It’s high time the United States has an ambassador who’s smart enough to know that “diplomacy” is no excuse for tolerating UN bullshit.   

n     Stem-Cell Politics 

            Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) recently broke ranks with the Bush administration over the issue of federal funding for stem-cell research.  Senator Frist announced he would support expanding federally-funded research in embryonic stem-cells beyond the 72 existing lines of cells to which President Bush’s policy has limited federal research.  “The limitations put in place in 2001 [by Bush] will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases,” Frist said.  (Many researchers believe embryonic stem cells could be promising in helping to find cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and certain kinds of cancers.) “Therefore, I believe the president’s policy should be modified,” he declared.  “Pro-life” activists who hailed Dr. Frist as an “expert” when he pontificated about the Terri Schiavo case (never mind that it was outside his area of medical expertise) now are turning on the Senator, jabbering that he’s lost his “moral” authority by taking his new stand. 

            It’s not difficult being neutral on this issue: both sides in the debate over federal funding of stem-cell research are equally repulsive, intellectually speaking.   

            Advocates of federal stem-cell funding – a disparate group of persons including actor Michael J. Fox and former First Lady Nancy Reagan – act like just another group of hungry pigs, squealing to whet their appetites at the trough of federal funding, as if their pet project were the only worthwhile object for spending federal taxpayers’ money.  Stem-cell research can go on perfectly well without federal funding:  California voters recently approved billions of dollars of stem-cell research funding in the nation’s most populous state (an extravagant waste of California taxpayers’ dollars that nevertheless should be pleasing to the one-issue activists); and, as with any other special interest, private funding by individuals who really care about the issue enough to voluntarily contribute their own money ought to be the chief source of funding the medical research, anyway.   

            Opponents of federal stem-cell funding – a somewhat more homogeneous group of anti-abortion activists and religious conservatives – adamantly take the “moral” high ground, claiming to defend the principle that “every human life is sacred,” while begging the critical question – the definition of human life – in such a way as to deprive it of all meaningful context.  It is a debatable question whether a fetus in the early stages of its development, prior to the point of viability, ought to be regarded under the law as a human being with the right to life; it is even more questionable whether that legal status ought to be afforded to a tiny ball of cells that was left unused in a fertility clinic.   

            Lurking behind the stem-cell debate is the even more contentious debate over abortion – a debate whose extreme antagonists are also just as equally repulsive.  “Pro-choice” activists who would allow any abortion, however close to normal delivery, are blind not only to rational arguments on behalf of the unborn child’s fundamental right to life but also the responsibility of the pregnant woman to respect that right – a responsibility that she bears not only as a fellow human being but also (except in the singular case of rape) as willing co-creator of the unborn child.  “Pro-life,” or anti-abortion, activists who would outlaw all abortions, however early and for whatever purpose, are not only insensitive to the legitimate rights of the pregnant woman (particularly when she was the victim of rape) but also fail to appreciate the contextual nature of rights, properly speaking.  Human rights, such as the basic right to life, pertain uniquely to human beings; and human life, in any meaningful sense, must be defined in some way more sophisticated than merely the existence of a biological entity having a certain number of chromosomes.   

            The extreme activists on both sides of the abortion debate have been so blinded by their fanaticism that they fail to see that abortion is one of those few issues in the law that genuinely requires compromise.  Unless and until technology provides a solution (permitting a woman to terminate her pregnancy without harming the fetus), the law cannot avoid the problem of balancing two equally fundamental rights (the right of the woman to own her own body and the right of the unborn child to live).  The only way to balance these rights (which is what the late Justice Blackmun had tried to do in his opinion for the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade) is to meaningfully define human life, to designate the point at which the developing fetus has legally-protectable interests.  (There is a legitimate constitutional question whether that determination may be done by the courts, as part of their judicial review power, or ought to be left to legislatures; however, that question – essentially a debate over proper application of the principle of separation of powers – is ignored by the fanatics on either side of the abortion debate.) 

            Meanwhile, President Bush has threatened finally – at long last – to exercise his first presidential veto, if Congress passes a bill expanding federal funding for stem-cell research.  Just as his predecessor abused the veto power, by using it unconstitutionally as a political tool (see my 1996 op-ed “Clinton Vetoes Undermine the Constitution”), so the current President has been abusing the veto by failing to exercise it, despite the fact that Congress has passed many unconstitutional laws (one case in point:  the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance regulatory law, which Bush signed despite questions about its constitutionality, only to have the Supreme Court uphold the law).  The Constitution’s framers intended the presidential veto to be a check-and-balance power, a safeguard against unconstitutional legislation:  like a muscle in the human body, if it’s not sufficiently exercised, it can atrophy through disuse.   

            President Bush, who is in danger of allowing the veto power to so atrophy, could legitimately veto a bill funding federal stem-cell research on the grounds that it’s not among the enumerated powers given Congress under the Constitution and cannot be reasonably justified as a “necessary and proper” adjunct to any of those enumerated powers.  Not surprisingly, no one in Washington (except some of my friends at think tanks like the Cato Institute or The Objectivist Center) would support a veto on such grounds:  taking seriously the limits that the Constitution imposes on federal spending powers would jeopardize the vast majority of things done today by the federal government.  Only we principled fools who actually care about limiting the power of government would like that result.

n     Over-Sensitive Veterans and Other Wimps

      Once again, a Hollywood movie has prompted zealous politicians in Congress to threaten Americans with another unnecessary federal law.   The summer comedy “Wedding Crashers” shows its two lead characters – a pair of party boys intent on wooing bridesmaids by “crashing” wedding receptions – posing as war heroes, with fake medals.  As a publicity gimmick, producers of the movie posted an official “Crasher’s Kit” at the film’s Web site featuring a fake Purple Heart medal, ready to print, with the instructions, “All you need to do is press the button.” 

      Veterans groups were outraged.  Noting the long history of the Purple Heart – the medal was created in 1782 by George Washington – Thomas H. Corey, a disabled Vietnam veteran and president of the Vietnam Veterans of America, declared: “That award honors the service and sacrifice of those who put their lives on the line for our country and were wounded in action.  It is unconscionable to me – and it is an insult to everyone who has served the nation in the military – to trivialize the Purple Heart.”  When other veterans groups and law-enforcement officers jumped on the band wagon, condemning the film’s mockery and warning that a “surge” of fakers could heed the movie’s message, the filmmakers responded.  New Line Cinema removed the printable Purple Heart from the “Wedding Crashers” Web site and issued an apology:  “We understand the sensitivity regarding the medals and did not intend to make light of their significance in any way,” a studio spokesman said. 

      That did not end the matter, however.  On July 22, Congressman John Salazar (D.-Colo.) introduced into the House of Representatives a bill, entitled “the Stolen Valor Act,” expanding federal law to make it a crime to falsely wear or lay claim to the Purple Heart or other military medal. 

            It’s hard to decide who’s being more ridiculous here:  over-sensitive veterans with no sense of humor or demagogic politicians looking for any excuse to pander to special interests while expanding the reach of the federal government over Americans’ daily lives.  Once again, the advocate of limited government must ask:  By what constitutional authority does Congress criminalize fake military medals?  It does not fall within the enumerated powers of Congress, nor is it not a legitimate “necessary and proper” power, for many reasons – among them, that if anyone is really harmed by this activity, it’s someone who might be victimized (actually victimized, by being harmed in their person or their property) by fraud – but there are already laws against fraud, in all of the states.  Another federal law is simply unnecessary – except as a way for politicians (particularly Democrats like Salazar, who might be sensitive to the charge that their political party is weak on military defense issues) to pander to special-interest groups, in this case by kissing some veteran ass. 

      Hurting the feelings of veterans isn’t sufficient reason to make something criminal.  (It used to be that “for the children” was the mantra chanted by over-zealous politicians who wanted to criminalize things that shouldn’t be the government’s business; now, it seems that doing it “for the veterans” is sufficient justification, for some busy-bodies.)  We live in a society in which government, at all levels – but especially at the national level – is too big, too intrusive in the daily lives of all Americans; and the explosion in federal criminal law – the tremendous increase in laws criminalizing all sorts of actions, many of them not actually harmful to anyone – is one result.  “There ought to be a law” is perhaps the most dangerous phrase in American politics today. 

n     “Congressmen on Steroids” Update 

            Yet another example of Congress going too far in its regulatory zeal is its continuing inquiry into steroid use by major league baseball players.  The latest controversy involves the Baltimore Orioles’ Rafael Palmeiro, who was suspended after testing positive for steroids, although in mid-March he had testified to Congress that he “never used steroids, period.”   

            Amidst all the debate over Palmeiro’s case and what it may reveal about rampant steroid use in professional sports, very few commentators seem to question the legitimacy of members of Congress poking their noses into this issue.   How terrible that he “lied to Congress,” so many people say – as if that were wrongful in itself.  On the contrary, one might argue that to tell a lie to Congress – or, better yet, to refuse to answer questions posed during a hearing on the grounds that it’s unauthorized by the Constitution – is the duty of any good American, when faced with an out-of-control Congress that’s poking its nose into things that are none of its damn business.)  Far too many people naively believe that Congress legitimately may investigate – and therefore legislate – on virtually anything, notwithstanding the definite limits the Constitution puts on the powers of the national government.   

            I discussed the Congressional hearings in an earlier entry (see “Congressmen on Steroids” in “Spring Briefs,” March 28.)  As I noted there, the real problem isn’t whether or not baseball players are using steroids – which has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the legitimate functions of the federal government enumerated in the Constitution.  The real problem is an addiction to a drug that’s far more dangerous to Americans’ health than are steroids:  that’s the drug of political power – an intoxicating, mind-altering drug that deludes its users into thinking that they can solve any of society’s problems by legislating them away – the abuse of which by members of Congress is a far worse scandal than any of the scandals they’re investigating. 

n     Indian Givers – and Takers 

            The NCAA should be renamed the “NPCAA” – the National Political Correctness Athletic Association – in light of its recent decision banning the use of American Indian nicknames it considers “hostile or abusive” during its postseason tournaments beginning next year.  Eighteen schools have such nicknames, including Florida State (Seminoles), Illinois (Fighting Illini), Central Michigan (Chippewas), North Dakota (Fighting Sioux), and Utah (Utes).  The NCAA ban, which will take effect in February 2006, would prohibit schools on the list from hosting postseason competition (such as Utah, which is scheduled to be the site of first- and second-round games in next March’s NCAA men’s basketball tournament), unless they remove the “offensive” nicknames and logos.  Schools on the list could not play in postseason tournaments unless they cover up the references to their nicknames; and effective in August 2008, the ban also would apply to the uniforms of cheerleaders, dance teams, and band members at NCAA championship sites. 

            The NCAA is a private organization, entitled to adopt whatever policies it wishes (however stupid they may be), concerning college athletics.  But given the organization’s virtual monopoly over the field of college sports, its policies – which, given the organization’s influence and social power, ought always to be adopted with caution – have a huge potential to be abused.  In trying to dictate school nicknames, the NCAA clearly is over-reaching: it’s trying to dictate a matter that has nothing to do with athletic competition, properly speaking.  The chairman of the NCAA Executive Committee, Walter Harrison (president of the University of Hartford), seemed to recognize this when he said, “Colleges and universities may adopt any mascot that they wish, as that is an institutional matter.”  After having conceded that the NCAA legitimately cannot dictate school nicknames directly, however, he then added the organization’s rationale for attempting to do so, indirectly: “But as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity, or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we control.” 

Perhaps it’s not surprising that a bunch of college presidents would adopt such a rule:  it’s symptomatic of the epidemic of “political correctness” that, unfortunately, has dominated so many American colleges and campuses in recent years.  The same sort of college administrators who are blind to the threat to free speech posed  by campus speech codes – which similarly ban certain expressions cause certain groups find them “offensive,” “hostile or abusive” – apparently are similarly blind to the threat posed to institutional autonomy by the NCAA ban.  And just as with regard to campus speech codes, the key question that’s overlooked by the P.C. police is, “Offensive” or “hostile or abusive” – TO WHOM?  Who decides when a given nickname is “hostile or abusive”?  Anyone who might regard it as such, regardless how irrational their view may be or how incompatible it may be with the subjective views of others?  If so, then the ban on nicknames – like the similar bans on “offensive” speech found in many colleges’ speech codes – is a form of the “hecklers’ veto,” which threatens the broad freedom of speech and inquiry that ought to prevail in society, and especially on college campuses.  (For more on how speech codes and other tactics of the “P.C. police” have threatened free speech and academic freedom on college campuses, see the splendid book by Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate, The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses (1998).) 

            That seems to be the case here – for the NCAA’s list of 18 schools includes virtually all schools with American Indian nicknames, regardless whether they are simply the names of tribes that have historic ties to the states in which the schools are located (such as the Florida State Seminoles, the Central Michigan Chippewas, or the Utah Utes) or are more generic references to American Indians (such as the Alcorn State Braves or the Arkansas State Indians).  In many cases, the actual American Indian tribes whose names constitute the nicknames have given their consent to the colleges’ use, as have the Chippewas (for Central Michigan) and the Chocktaws (for Mississippi College).  That apparently also is the case with the Seminoles in Florida, according to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, which quotes Florida State’s president, T.K. Wetherell, who called the NCAA decision “outrageous and insulting,” citing a resolution by the Seminole Tribe of Florida that supports the school’s use of the nickname and symbols, including Chief Osceola, who gallops onto the field on horseback and plants a burning spear in the turf before home games.  If the Florida Seminoles are not offended by the school’s use of the name and symbols, why should the NCAA think otherwise?  Max Osceola, a member of the tribal council, asked, “Is the NCAA going to make Notre Dame go ask every Irishman if it’s OK to use the name Fighting Irish?”  (Many other college nicknames could be considered offensive, if not to racial or ethnic groups, than to history or geography.  For example, there’s the University of Michigan Wolverines – which Michigan fans (and some opponents) find apt, as the wolverine is a ferocious animal, despite the fact that it’s not native to the state of Michigan.  The badger is, but that animal’s the mascot of Wisconsin (which, incidentally, is a native state for the wolverine!)  Ohio State fans, for the most part, apparently are happy with their nickname, Buckeyes, for the buckeye – a form of chestnut – is indeed native to Ohio; but many Michigan fans might think it even more appropriate that the Ohio State symbol is a nut!  And the University of Virginia’s founder, Thomas Jefferson, who was a Whig in his politics, probably would be outraged to learn that his school’s nickname is the Cavaliers.) 

            Power-hungry college presidents on the NCAA Executive Committee are the ones directly responsible for this outrageous rule, but the people really behind the ban are a handful of political activists eager to impose their subjective views of what’s “hostile or abusive” on the rest of us.  One of those activists, also quoted in the L.A. Times article, is Cindy La Marr, former president of the National Indian Education Association and executive director of Capitol Area Indian Resources in Sacramento, California.   (By the way, shouldn’t that be Native American – or even Indigenous Peoples, the p.c. term fashionable in Canada – in the title of those organizations?  Isn’t Indian offensive to some, too?)  Ms. La Marr called the NCAA ban “a start.”  “The whole reason behind it is, it harms our children,” she said, citing not only stereotypes and caricatures but also the nicknames themselves.  “It’s different if it’s a city school or street.  A sports team creates a division because one team wins and one team loses.”  That statement is not only illogical, but it also verifies my theory (stated above, in the blurb on over-sensitive veterans) that the slogan “for the children” is a smokescreen used by paternalistic scoundrels. 

n     Pushy Presbyterians and the “Religious Left” 

            The “Religious Left” is up to its usual nonsense:  the Presbyterian Church USA, the largest Presbyterian denomination, announced on August 5 that it would pressure four U.S. corporations to stop providing military equipment and technology to Israel, by threatening to divest the Church’s stock in those companies if they don’t comply.  The Presbyterians are the latest in a string of so-called “mainline” Protestant churches to use corporate divestment as a tactic in the Middle East conflict; the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, two regions of the United Methodist Church, and international groups such as the World Council of Churches and the Anglican Consultative Council all have endorsed divestment or economic pressure campaigns in recent months.  In response, some Jewish groups have accused the churches of singling out Israel for blame and failing to acknowledge the Palestinians’ role in perpetuating violence.   And some – with good reason – have said that anti-Semitism is behind the churches’ moves.

            It’s a symptom of the degree to which a left-wing political orthodoxy dominates the American news media that we often hear about the so-called “Religious Right” – certain evangelical Protestant groups that are conservative in their political activism – but we seldom hear about the Religious Left, which is a just as active in support of left-wing political causes, and just as dangerous.  This anti-Israel movement is part of a left-wing political agenda being pushed by various religious groups – not only Protestant churches but also the U.S. Catholic bishops – that includes opposition to the U.S. military presence in Iraq, support for protectionism and paternalistic labor laws, and other so-called “social justice” issues.  (As I tell my students, the phrase social justice is left-wing code for what really amounts to socialist injustice:  using the coercive powers of government to reach into the pockets of those who create wealth and forceably transfer the wealth they’ve earned into the pockets of those who haven’t.)   

            By siding with the Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, American religious leftists are blinding themselves not only to the evil done by militant Palestinian terrorists but also to the long-range best interests of the Palestinian people themselves, who individually are far better off being occupied by Israel than they would be under the dictatorship of a terrorist Palestinian state.  As Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said in response to the recent Presbyterian decision, “This is a brilliantly organized political campaign to hurt Israel, and it’s not going to help a single Palestinian.”  He’s absolutely right:  the Presbyterians’ action, at its best, shows incredible political naiveté – the kind of simplistic, knee-jerk response to political issues that’s typical of the political left.  At its worst, the Presbyterians’ action reveals a form of anti-Semitism that’s, unfortunately, becoming not only acceptable but also “politically correct” to leftist intellectuals in both the U.S. and Europe – a hatred of Israel, the only truly civilized nation in the Middle East. 

n     Yet Another Pandering Politician 

            Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro has taken the position that soldiers wounded or killed in Iraq are “crime victims” and, therefore, either they or their families can receive money from the Ohio Crime Victims Compensation Fund.  According to a recent article in the Columbus Dispatch (“Victim fund available for soldiers,” August 6), Petro’s policy means, for example, that an Ohio veteran – a 24-year-old amputee who was injured by a bomb in Iraq last summer – could receive compensation for expenses not covered by his military disability pension, such as his family’s travel costs during his treatment.  Ohio stands alone among the states in interpreting its crime victims’ compensation fund this peculiar way.  Add to that fact a few additional facts – that in the first week of August, Ohio’s heavy casualties in the war were headline stories in both local and national news; that crime-victim advocacy groups aren’t as politically powerful (or as well-organized for “turn-out-the-vote” political activities) as veterans’ groups or military families; and, most importantly, that Jim Petro is a Republican candidate for Ohio’s governor in 2006 – and it’s not difficult to conclude that politics lie behind Petro’s policy. 

            Petro first articulated his position in June 2004, when he held that soldiers wounded in Iraq are victims of terrorism, not combat, because the United States isn’t technically at war with Iraq.  “The United States is at peace with the current Iraqi government,” he said at the time.  “When our soldiers are killed or injured in that climate, it’s the result of criminal activity.”  As a matter of law, Petro is wrong:  notwithstanding the absence of a formal declaration of war by Congress, the continuing U.S. military presence is Iraq is a result of congressional resolutions authorizing President Bush to use U.S. military force in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime and to help keep the peace.  As most Americans who are knowledgeable about the situation in Iraq understand, our military occupation of Iraq is a part of the broader “war on terrorism,” which is truly a war, both in common understanding and under the law.  Petro’s peculiar definition of “crime victim” not only defies common sense but also, as noted above, is inconsistent with the interpretation of the law by other states’ attorneys general.   For example, as the Dispatch article noted, another soldier injured last summer by a bomb in Iraq, a staff sergeant from Abilene, Texas, had his claim from his state’s crime-victims fund twice denied by the Texas attorney general.  After the Texas soldier sued for $150,000, a judge dismissed the lawsuit in May. 

            Although according to a Petro spokesman the Ohio Crime Victims Compensation Fund is “a healthy, $40 million fund” not in danger of depletion, crime-victims advocates are justly concerned about extending crime-victim status to soldiers and their families.  While the sergeant’s lawsuit was pending in Texas, victims advocates warned that claims from thousands of injured Iraq veterans could wipe out funds meant for victims of murder, rape, or domestic violence.  Other soldiers’ claims have been attempted in at least two other states, but apparently haven’t been successful, according to Dan Eddy, executive director of the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, the Dispatch reported. 

            Of course, U.S. military personnel and their families ought to be compensated for their losses – whether they are wounded or lose their lives – suffered as a result of their military service to the nation; but their compensation ought to be determined by Congress, under general laws applied uniformly throughout the United States, and not by ambitious state politicians seeking to curry favor with veterans’ groups or military families.  Whether states ought to have crime-victim compensation funds is itself debatable – I think that criminals, not taxpayers, ought to be held accountable for compensating victims of crimes for their losses – but when state laws provide for such funds, paid for through general tax revenues, it’s an abuse of the power of his office for the state attorney general to allow money in the fund – which is not his money, but the taxpayers’ money – to be used for purposes not intended under the law.  Petro, by so blatantly an act of political pandering, has demonstrated that he’s not fit to be attorney general – let alone governor.  There’s nothing more despicable than a politician who’s generous with other people’s money. 

n     Goodbye, Columbus 

            Bravo to the National Rifle Association, for canceling its plans to hold its 2007 national convention in Columbus, Ohio, in light of the city’s recently-enacted ban on so-called “assault weapons.”  The NRA, the nation’s largest civil-rights organization, is taking a principled stand in defense of the rights of its members – and of the residents of Columbus.  (I count as both.)  In a brief appearance at the Columbus Convention Center, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre succinctly stated the organization’s reason for the cancellation:  “The party is canceled because last week your City Council unanimously voted to revoke the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.”   

            The cabal of left-wing Democrats who control Columbus’ city government was predictable in its reaction.  “The sign on the front stoop says `Welcome.’  It doesn’t say `For Sale,’” Council President Matt Habash said, hypocritically – ignoring the fact that the City Council, by adopting the ban, sold out to anti-gun, pro-control fanatics who’ve sought to make the Columbus law a model for similar bans in other major cities across the U.S.  The Columbus ordinance makes it a first-degree misdemeanor to possess or sell any “assault weapon,” defined as a semi-automatic weapon with certain characteristics.  Touted as a “community safety” issue, the ban will do nothing to lessen violent crime in the city; like all other such gun-control laws that ban weapons solely because of their effectiveness, it only will deprive law-abiding citizens of their ability to defend themselves against violent criminals – their right, guaranteed under both the Ohio Constitution and the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.  In time, I hope, the courts will strike down the ordinance as unconstitutional, just as they did the city’s two earlier attempted gun bans – or the General Assembly will pass a statewide law prohibiting cities from abridging citizens’ gun rights. 

            The weapons ban is part of the Democrat cabal’s continuing assault on the rights of the people of Columbus; it follows another measure passed by City Council late last year, banning smoking in public places – a measure that not only denies smokers their freedom to use tobacco products but also denies business owners their right to use their property as they see fit.  Like the assault-weapons ban, the smoking ban was based on questionable “studies” that supposedly justified it as a public health measure.  (On the questionable theory that second-hand tobacco smoke causes harm to non-smokers, see my discussion of “The 53K Lie” in “More Spring Briefs,” April 25.) 

Columbus politicians claim that the city won’t be hurt by the loss of the NRA convention – which was expected to bring 60,000 people and generate $15-20 million in revenue – because four other large groups are considering holding conventions here in 2007.  Let’s hope, for the sake of principle, that those groups also pull out of Columbus – a city that not only disregards the freedoms of its own citizens but which also imposes one of the highest hotel taxes in the nation, thus violating American founding principles by taxing nonresidents without their consent. 

            Meanwhile, during the last week of July, the “moderate” Democratic Leadership Council held a convention in Columbus, headlined with a speech by that power-hung bitch, Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Not surprisingly, the city’s political leaders welcomed Mrs. Clinton and her fellow Democrats with open arms.  It seems that in downtown Columbus today, civil liberties are out but wolves in sheep’s clothing are in. 

n     Time Travails 

At the end of July, Congress passed a so-called “energy bill,” a hodge-podge of legislation that included a four-week extension of daylight-saving time – ostensibly to “save energy,” by giving kids an hour more daylight for trick-or-treating on Halloween.  (The new law starts daylight-saving time three weeks earlier, the second Sunday in March, and ends it a week later, the first Sunday of November.)  This is Congress’s idea of a national energy policy.   

            Daylight-saving time, instead of being extended, ought to be abolished.  It’s not the legitimate function of government to play games with time, forcing everyone to change their clocks ahead one hour in the spring and then to change their clocks back one hour in the fall – no matter what the policy justifications might be.  (One might ask, by what authority – that is, by what provision in the Constitution empowering it to do so, for our national government under the Constitution is a limited government of enumerated powers – may Congress legitimately tinker with time?  The answer is there is no such provision -- other than the Commerce Clause, misinterpreted to allow Congress to legislate on virtually anything, under the false theory that it somehow it’s connected with interstate “commerce.”  Time is a matter of social convention; it’s determined by the free market.  Indeed, the system of time zones with uniform time within each time zone was devised by railroad companies, in order to have workable railroad schedules.  The standardization of time as a result of private initiative is an excellent example of society – that is, of the free-market system – itself providing order, without government.) 

            Using the heavy hand of government to force everyone to change their clocks twice a year isn’t just a hell of an inconvenience; it epitomizes a government that has grown too big, that interferes far too much with our freedom.  (I wonder if any of the politicians who claim that daylight-saving time “saves energy” – a bipartisan coalition led by co-sponsors Edward Markey (D. – Mass.) and Fred Upton (R. – Mich.) -- considered any studies showing the real costs of requiring all Americans to change all their clocks twice a year – and that’s just part of its costs.  The American Transport Association, which represents the nation’s airlines, opposed the extension, saying it would cost airlines millions in lost connections and uncompetitive schedules abroad.  Indeed, after the industry objected, Congress scaled back its original plan for a two-month extension and delayed implementation until 2007.)  Like income-tax withholding, daylight-saving time was originally enacted by Congress as an “emergency” war-time measure (it was first adopted during World War I, then mandated again, year-round, as “War Time” during World War II); but it remained in place long after the war-time emergency passed.  In the 1970s it was extended, ostensibly because of the Arab oil embargo; and in 1986 it was extended, from six to seven months a year.   Now Congress, in its finite wisdom, has extended it an additional month.  It’s further proof of one of my basic political rules of thumb: any legislation that passes Congress with bipartisan support is, by definition, bad for the country. 

n     Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 

            The sixth of the seven anticipated Harry Potter novels by J.K. Rowling hit the bookstores in mid-July, setting records for the biggest book sales day in history.  Rowling deserves every dollar (or should I say pound?) that she’ll make in royalties from sales of the book – as well as its eventual making into a film, along with other books in the series – for Rowling has earned her profits by creating a splendid story that appeals to adults as well as to kids.  Contrary to what many reviewers have claimed (for example, USA Today’s Dierdre Donahue, who in her July 18 review declared it “not a kid’s book” and too “grim” for young readers), the Half-Blood Prince is no more “grim” or “dark” than previous books in the series, particularly book five, The Order of the Phoenix, which was far more violent – and far less cheerful – than the new volume.  Today’s children are far more mature than many adults give them credit for, and the continuing popularity of Rowling’s Harry Potter books is a testament to that encouraging fact. 

            Indeed, one of the strengths of Rowling’s narrative is her ability to lighten up with humor what is essentially a grim tale of the struggle between good and evil – with the evil Lord Valdemort and his “Death-Eater” followers murdering men, women, and children, in both the wizarding and “Muggle” worlds, across the land, while at Hogwarts School, Harry and his close friends, Ron and Hermione, continue to cope with the day-to-day angsts of adolescents, albeit with not only the troubles typical of 16-year-olds but also the unique problems faced by 16-year-old wizards- and witches- in training.  (Incidentally, the suggestion by some reviewers that the new book is somehow more sexually explicit than previous books is also quite exaggerated:  notwithstanding one character’s reference to “hooking up,” the supposedly hormone-charged teens of Rowlings’ story do nothing more sexual than some enthusiastic “snogging,” or kissing.  Real-world 16-year-old boys tend to use their “wands” far more than Harry or Ron do.) 

            Two of my favorite characters are Ron’s older twin brothers, Fred and George Weasley, the pranksters who dropped out of Hogwarts School in volume five (they left Hogwarts in spectacular style, at a time when  the school was under the dictatorial control of the nasty Dolores Umbridge and the bureaucrats at the Ministry of Magic).  Now successful entrepreneurs, Fred and George liven up the story in the Half-Blood Prince just as their joke shop livens up Diagon Alley.  As described by Rowling in chapter 6,

"Diagon Alley had changed.  The colorful, glittering window displays of spellbooks, potion ingredients, and cauldrons were lost to view, hidden behind large Ministry of Magic posters that had been pasted over them.  Most of these somber purple posters carried blown-up versions of the security advice on the Ministry pamphlets that had been sent out over the summer, but others bore moving black-and-white photographs of Death Eaters known to be on the loose.

. . . Set against the dull, poster- muffled shop fronts around them, Fred and George’s windows hit the eye like a firework display.  Casual passersby were looking back over their shoulders at the windows, and a few rather stunned-looking people had actually come to a halt, transfixed.  The left-hand window was dazzlingly full of an assortment of goods that revolved, popped, flashed, bounced, and shrieked: Harry’s eyes began to water just looking at it.  The right-hand window was covered with a gigantic poster, purple like those of the Ministry, but emblazoned with flashing yellow letters:

            WHY ARE YOU WORRYING ABOUT YOU-KNOW-WHO?

            YOU SHOULD BE WORRYING ABOUT U-NO-POO –

            THE CONSTIPATION SENSATION

            THAT’S GRIPPING THE NATION!

“Harry started to laugh.  He heard a weak sort of moan beside him and looked around to see Mrs. Weasley gazing, dumbfounded, at the poster.  Her lips moved silently, mouthing the name “U-No-Poo.”  “They’ll be murdered in their beds!” she whispered.

“No they won’t!” said Ron, who, like Harry, was laughing.  “This is brilliant!”

“Brilliant” is right:  it nicely illustrates the goodness of Rowling’s heroes, in their ability to keep up their spirits in the face of the evil surrounding them in the world.    

            More seriously, as Meghan Cox Gurdon points out in her July 19 review in Wall Street Journal, the new Harry Potter book enriches the theme of the struggle between good and evil by emphasizing the characters’ free will.  “At one point, Professor Dumbledore explains to Harry that he is not compelled by either destiny or prophecy to pursue Valdemort, who murdered Harry’s parents and countless other innocents.  The boy has free will and can choose his course of action,” she notes, quoting from the close of chapter 23: 

“[H]e understood at last what Dumbledore had been trying to tell him.  It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high.  Some people, perhaps, would say that there was little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew – and so do I, thought Harry, with a rush of fierce pride, and so did my parents – that there was all the difference in the world.”

            The Harry Potter novels aren’t just fun to read:  they raise compelling philosophical questions that are equally important to kids and to adults.  (For more on this, see the splendid book of essays, Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts, edited by David Baggett and Shawn E. Klein, and published last year by Open Court Books.) 

            With regard to the much-discussed ending of the book (and the death of a beloved character), I have a theory which, to my knowledge, no one else yet has voiced in print (except perhaps on the Harry Potter fan discussion boards, which I have not checked).  (SPOILER ALERT:  If you don’t want to know how the book ends, please ignore the rest of this paragraph.)  My theory is that Professor Dumbledore really did not die, which is to say he really was not killed by the “Half-Blood Prince” (Professor Snape):  he declared his complete trust in Snape, and it’s unlikely that someone as wise as Dumbledore would be so wrong about something so important; Snape apparently killed Dumbledore using “Avada Kedavra,” which (as an Entertainment Weekly writer recently noted) is a “you-gotta-mean-it-for-it-to-work” curse; and Snape’s actions both fulfilled his Unbreakable Vow to Draco Malfoy’s mother that he would protect her son (in this case, from Valdemort’s Death Eaters, who would have killed Draco for failing to carry out his ordered assassination of Dumbledore) and also saved Harry from being killed by the Death Eaters, whom Snape told to hold off, supposedly to “save” Harry’s killing for Valdemort.  If my theory is correct, Dumbledore – with Snape’s cooperation – faked his own death, presumably for strategic reasons, to help Harry win his eventual showdown with Valdemort.  (That leaves Snape to continue spying on Valdemort, now from within the evil inner circle, for the Order of the Phoenix.)  The question remaining for the final, seventh volume in the Harry Potter series is how soon in the book will Rowling reveal this:  Will Harry (and Rowlings’ readers) learn early in the book that Dumbledore still lives?  (Even if dead, presumably Dumbledore could still communicate with Harry through his talking portrait in the Hogwarts’ Headmaster’s office.)  Or will Rowling save this as a surprise for the triumphant ending of the saga? 

n     Queer Endings 

The fifth, and final, season of the TV series Queer as Folk ended with a finale on Sunday, August 7.  QaF made television history: it pioneered in showing homosexuals as sexual beings – not as stereotypically campy or effeminate males, like Paul Lynde’s persona on Hollywood Squares or the Jack and Will characters on Will and Grace, devoid of any real sexuality – as well as showing all persons, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, as unique individuals.  Because some of the gay characters seemed to fit negative stereotypes some people hold about homosexual persons (for example, the Brian Kinney character, discussed below), critics – both in the gay community and in mainstream media – accused the show of perpetuating stereotypes; while fans of the show regarded many of the characters as heroes.  As one of the show’s producers noted in the finale special Sunday night, those who disliked the show’s characters called them “stereotypes,” those who admired them considered them “archetypes,” but the writers made them each unique individuals.  

Queer as Folk also made television history – and demonstrated the value of cable entertainment free of government regulation – by its explicit treatment of controversial aspects of life in gay America, with its overt sexuality (full frontal nudity and depictions of oral and anal sex), its explicit language (for example, the character Debbie, the proud heterosexual mother of her gay son, Michael, who’s surely the most foul-mouthed mother that organizations like PFLAG would ever have!), and its honest portrayals of such things as drug abuse (for example, the character Ted’s struggle with crystal meth addiction), living with AIDS (Michael’s uncle and Debbie’s brother), the bar scene (the notorious “back room” at Babylon, the show’s premiere gay dance club), gay-bashing (the near-fatal attack on Justin by a homophobic school-mate), dating between HIV-negative and HIV-positive men (Michael and Ben), hustling (Michael and Ben’s street-wise foster son, Hunter), cyber-porn (Ted’s short-lived business venture starring Emmett’s solo performances), sugar daddies (Emmett’s elderly boyfriend who suffered a fatal heart attack while entering the “mile high club”), STDs and other health issues (Emmett’s scare and Brian’s treatment for testicular cancer), parents’ acceptance (or non-acceptance) of their sons’ or daughters’ homosexuality (for example, Justin’s mother’s eventual acceptance but Brian’s strained relationships with both his mother and father) and so on.  Thankfully, the show was aired on a premium cable channel where nudity, explicit language, and sexual situations were not censored by either the network or the FCC “indecency” police. 

The series’ episodes all have been spoiled by the facile, knee-jerk left-wing political biases that, unfortunately, are so dominant in America’s gay political culture.  Until the past two seasons, however, those simplistic and naïve political biases were no more than minor distractions from compelling story lines and characterizations that dealt honestly with all sides – both positive and negative – of homosexual life in America.  Beginning with some of the fourth season storylines and continuing into the fifth season, unfortunately, the show obsessed over two political issues – same-sex marriage and child custody – that not only put its facile leftism at center stage but also made the major characters into quite unsympathetic narcissistic whiners.   As I’ve previously discussed (see “Marriage American Style,” May 19, 2004), there is a strong, logically persuasive case for expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, based on the principles of individual rights.  There’s a similarly persuasive case for allowing homosexual persons, whether as couples or individually, to adopt children, for the qualifications for good parenting have nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation.   

Unfortunately, neither of the leading same-sex couples in Queer as Folk qualify as poster cases in support of gay marriage or adoption; these characters and their stories have been so unsympathetic that they could set back by decades the cause of equal civil rights for homosexual persons.  The leading gay-male couple, Michael and Ben, constantly whine about their marriage not being legally recognized in the United States.  Although they did a fine thing in assuming legal guardianship over Hunter, a teenage runaway who (although heterosexual) had supported himself while on the streets by being a prostitute for males, both Michael and Ben failed as parents to Hunter when he needed them the most – when news of his former hustling made him the victim of violent homophobia at his school – prompting him again to run away.  Both Ben and Michael were portrayed as men too wrapped up in their own agendas – Ben as a politically-active gay college professor, Michael as the biological father (sperm donor) of a lesbian couple’s second child who was caught up in a legal fight with the lesbians over visitation rights with the child – to properly act as parents for Hunter.  The lesbian couple, Lindsay and Melanie, do not seem mature enough for a monogamous relationship with each other, let alone for parenting.  After Lindsay had the couple’s first child by artificial insemination from a former boyfriend (Lindsay is somewhat bisexual), Melanie wanted to be a natural mother too – in part, to help repair her deteriorating relationship with Lindsay – and so she and Lindsay asked Michael to donate the sperm for their second child.  As a lawyer, Melanie should not have been surprised that Michael would be involved in a three-way custody battle for the baby, with her and Lindsay, after the lesbian couple decided to separate; and as a lawyer, she also should have known that the key consideration would be the best interests of the child, not the desires of the parents.  Fortunately, the three finally saw reason and reached an amicable agreement about the child – thus providing a positive example that homosexual men and women are not only capable of bringing a child into existence, biologically, but also of being competent parents – but only after first providing, through their fictional story, some ammunition for homophobes who would portray gay parents as hedonists with insufficient regard for the well-being of children.  Sadly, as portrayed by these two couples in Queer as Folk, gay parents come across as people who regard children much the same way as they regard nice cars or houses in the suburbs – that is, as yet another “toy,” or status-symbol, that’s possessed by successful yuppies. 

Lindsay and Melanie’s decision to move to Canada, so they could reside in a jurisdiction that legally recognizes same-sex marriages and parental rights, further reinforces their image as short-sided hedonists who put their desires to make a symbolic political point above the real, long-term interests of both themselves and their children.  How else can one justly characterize their decision to move to a place that dooms them all, among other things, to Canada’s life-threatening socialized health-care system?  

Notwithstanding the strong case that can be made for equal rights under the law for homosexual persons, the show also – probably unwittingly, I’d guess, given the facile leftism of its writers – raised some interesting questions about whether gay men and lesbians actually might be better off as “outlaws.”  As some gay libertarian activists have argued, for example, there are some advantages to having same-sex relationships not sanctioned by the state – if government recognizes marriage, it also regulates the dissolution of marriage, or divorce – and so leaving the definition of relationships (including such matters as child custody and property distribution when relationships end) up to the individuals involved, by their mutual consent (aided perhaps by third-party arbitration), and not regulated by law. 

Much of what’s unique about “gay culture” – including the greater degree of sexual freedom (and what many people see as a healthier, far more open embrace of all aspects of human sexuality) – arguably owes its existence to the outlaw, underground nature of homosexuality in American culture; full legal recognition of same-sex marriages and non-traditional families might also threaten that.  The character Brian Kenney, superbly played by actor Gale Harold (who happens to be heterosexual), represented what some people might see as a negative stereotype of a gay male:  a sexually promiscuous “bar fly” who continued in his 30s going out to the clubs as often as he had done in his 20s, refusing to commit to a monogamous relationship even after he met someone, Justin, whom he truly loved and who truly loved him.  Brian spent much of this past season questioning his friends’ (Ben’s and Michael’s) apparent embrace of the heterosexual model of domestic life – marriage, children, a house in the suburbs, etc., suggesting even that they were “traitors” to homosexuality – until Brian himself surprisingly decided similarly to “settle down” to a similarly “safe” lifestyle, when he announced he would marry Justin and move to a big house in the country. 

For me, Brian was the most intriguing character on the show – and the character whose maturation over its five seasons really did define Queer as Folk at its best.  Although Brian was in many ways a sort of “Peter Pan,” the stereotype of the boy who never grows up, he also was a successful businessman – apparently the most financially well-off of the show’s major characters – who in his career as an advertising executive was an uncompromising man of principle, a sort of Howard Roark of the ad world, who did not sacrifice his own vision of what’s best for his clients for his clients’ own whims.  Although the romantic in me liked seeing Brian and Justin together at last, the individualist in me was glad to see them, finally, decide not to get married so that, among other things, Justin could pursue his talents as an artist in New York City.  Rather than transforming Brian from Peter Pan into, say, Ward Cleaver, the writers of the final episode decided to allow him (and Justin) to reach a level of emotional maturity not equaled by the other characters of the show:  people who realize that truly loving someone means not sacrificing for the sake of that person or asking that person to sacrifice for your sake.  Rather than dooming themselves to a life together in their country mansion, where they would both be resentful of how their relationship was holding them back from each achieving his own goals, they made the heart-breaking decision not to marry, after all, but to respect one another’s individuality – the courage to be themselves, with “no apologies, no regrets,” as Brian said. 

According to the show’s producers in its series finale special, the title Queer as Folk comes from an Old English proverb,  “There’s nowt so queer as folk,” meaning that there’s nothing stranger than people – all people, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.  How true that is! 

 | Link to this Entry | Posted Monday, August 8, 2005 | Copyright David N. Mayer