George Will has written a good column that touches on the Convention currently convening in Minneapolis.

He goes over the divisions facing the Anglican/Episcopalian community, in the U.S. and worldwide, touching on opinion vs. theology vs. progressive philosophy, chronological and geographic snobbery, and the thought-provoking observation that "the typical member of the Anglican Communion is a 40-year-old African woman living on $10 a month." He also gets into an elaboration of how, half a decade ago, the American bishops reeeealy managed to get under the skin of some of their international counterparts.

Listening to these arguements, reading about the protests, turmoil, and anguish going on in the Church I grew up with, it's depressing. I feel a bit like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof: "You are right, and you are also right."

So some folks I know from outside the net have started up a Yahoo Group to facilitate discussions we have ongoing regarding American government and political thought, both modern and historical. (Why American? One, it's the system we understand most. Two, it's the system that affects us most directly.)

I thought I'd share the subject of our first thread of discussion with this crowd, especially as some of you are so incredibly smart, and I'm curious to hear some other points of view:

Can you prove that you own your life? That you have an inherent right to exist?

Yeah, it seems like it would be obvious. "Of course I own my life!" A few centuries back, it was generally thought of as a "self-evident" truth. But we live in days when the more educated you are, the dumber you can be. So, have at it, folks.

As promised, here's the letter I will be sending to my representatives in government:

---

Dear Senator/Representative/Governor,
          As I write this, the day is July the Fourth. On this day, millions of Americans have been celebrating, with cookouts, parades, and fireworks, the signing of a document: the Declaration of Independence. On this day, the founding fathers of this nation pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to sever the bonds holding this nation to a government accused of unfair taxation and repeated violation of the contracts under which the colonies were established.
          I find this an appropriate day on which to contemplate my own, personal sense of independence, and to wonder whether personal independence is still greatly valued in America today.

          A teacher I know from an inner-city school recently asked young children in her class what they wanted to be when they grow up. A number of the children didn't even understand the question: Their parents didn't 'do' anything, other than collect "their check" from the government. For these children, for their parents, personal independent accomplishment is meaningless.
          Democrats and Republicans are currently attempting to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs for senior citizens. Before Congress made it illegal under Section 4507 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, seniors were able to obtain, at their own expense, private medical insurance to cover these drug costs. Even now, no senior in real need has any excuse for not getting drugs, as there are numerous private charitable organizations out there who will give drugs away to anyone with real need. But our most politically active senior citizens seem to be more inclined to shift the burden of their care onto others. I'm not saying I would deny my grandfather the medical care if he needs. I'm saying, he can better afford it than I can. And if he does need anything he can't get on his own, let it be freely given by me, privately, personally, not taken from anyone else through taxes. And if I need medical care, let me be the one to pay for it. I claim no right to it at anyone else's expense.

          I heard on the news just the other day that unemployment statistics had hit another high. I also heard, not too long ago, that Congress had extended the time period for which unemployment benefits could be claimed. I've heard both of these news items with growing frequency these past few months. It's almost as if they go hand in hand, a sort of vicious circle. If anything, I'm beginning wonder if these benefits extensions may be hurting our chances of cutting unemployment. I recently heard a comment about a simple, oft-overlooked economic rule: That which government taxes, we get less of, and that which government subsidizes, we get more of. Our government is taxing income and productivity, and subsidizing unemployment and dependency. Quite frankly, I'm starting to get worried.
          And that's not all of it. Local and state governments have become increasingly dependent on funds handed out by the federal government. Funds acquired through taxation of the state's own residents. This subjects our cities and states to extensive federal rules and regulations, at least as long as they want to pay for the building of local highways, schools, and libraries. It's a neat way around the 9th and 10th Amendments to our Constitution, which would ordinarily make the funding of a library solely the responsibility of those who use it. But then, the citizens of my community would be in a better position to support our libraries on our own if we were taxed less at the federal level.
          My conclusion, sir, is that our Union is in a sad state. I want independence. I thirst for it. I believe it to be the natural human state. But to be a free people, we must be allowed to rise and fall on our own, without a paternalistic government there to catch us. When we make mistakes, we must be able to learn from them on our own. This is what I want. This is what I demand. This is what you are in office to secure for me. You're not there to give me another benefit at someone else's expense. You're there to protect that which is mine by birthright: My liberty. Please remember that.

Sincerely,
(Me)

Bull Detector Could Clean Up Political Jargon
Fox News

But people might be surprised at what little is left over if political speech is stripped of its sheen, said Stephen Hess, political analyst for the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

"To cut to the quick might not leave much," he said. "When you bite into it, there might not be much there. Sort of like cotton candy."

Lew Rockwell shines the light on this national Do Not Call registry.

Last year, on the Fourth, I went to see one of the original printed copies of the Declaration of Independence on a touring display at the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library. The exhibit was very, very well-done, and very stirring. The exhibit included a short movie with a history and a reading. And let me tell you something, it was written to be read to an audience. If you've never heard the Declaration read aloud, run out and get yourself a tape, or a friend, or something. Read it out loud to yourself, if you have to. If you've got kids, read it out loud to them.

This year, I wanted to do something else to give meaning to the day. Nice as it is having a three day weekend, I don't want this day to be just another excuse for more time away from work. The grand opening of the National Constitution Center would have been a great thing to attend, I'm sure, but unfortunately, it's just too far for away me to drive in a weekend.

But I got a thought into my head on Thursday while listening to my Daily Insensitivity Training on the radio. The Talkmaster always gets a bit grouchy this time of year due to a surplus of government-dependent flag-wavers. He wondered aloud if anyone would spend their holiday demanding personal independence from their representatives in government.

That struck me as a darned good idea.

So, I've spent the better part of the day drawing up a letter. After I get it proofread by a family member who's in the business of teaching political science at the University level, I'm going to send this letter off to every elected legislator and executive representing me. I'll also post this letter to my journal, and when I receive replies from my representatives, you'll get to read those, too.

I've made up my mind. Every Independence Day, I'm going to find some way beyond the fireworks, parades, and picnics to assert and celebrate my personal independence. Not always a letter, not always a museum exhibit. Maybe next year, I'll take an informal survey to answer a question that burned on my mind today: How many people at the local mall at lunchtime would choose perfect liberty over perfect comfort?

Have a good, safe, free weekend, everyone. And that applies to everyone outside my country, too.

For those who have never visited Freedom's Nest, check it out sometime. Anti-conservative, anti-liberal, pro-freedom.

There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal.
  -- F.A. Hayek

While the Pobble was in the water some unidentified creatures came and ate his toes off, and when he got home his aunt remarked: It's a fact the whole world knows, That Pobbles are happier without their toes, which is funny because it has a meaning, and one might even say a political significance. For the whole theory of authoritarian government is summed up in the statement that Pobbles are happier without their toes.
  -- George Orwell

The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.
  -- P.J. O'Rourke

Heard on Fox News that a few of the Democratic presidential wannabes are making campaign promises on the topic of energy policies. The common theme seems to be a '10 years to independence from Arabic/foreign oil' boast. (Nice thing about a goal that's a decade away, you can use it to run for reelection in 4 years, and if it fails, well, you're free from the burden of future campaigns.)

As usual, the game is coming out with the most impressive promise. Realistic odds of achieving results are irrelevant.

I've only found one story so far that attaches details to any of these promises. As chance would have it, it's about John Kerry, who (according to popular rumor) once served in Vietnam. His suggestion: Tighter fuel regulations and more federal spending. Government force and government money. Surprise, surprise. The day I hear a Democrat make an energy policy suggestion that doesn't fall into these two categories, I will be truly, truly shocked.

Will you hear one Democratic candidate suggest tapping ANWR? Or allowing more offshore drilling? Of course not. Wind generators? Only as long as the views from their seaside vacation homes aren't spoiled. Safe, clean nuclear power? Loosening the reigns on competition among energy companies? Hah. Not likely.

On a tangent, Neal Boortz's show notes for yesterday includes a rather apt suggestion for a new Democratic motto: "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can force someone to do for you".

For anyone who didn't catch it in Wednesday's Best of the Web from the Wall Street Journal, there's another news item about Zero Tolerance gone crazy. Seems she found a pocketknife in her backpack. (No mention of whether or not it was hers.) She shows it to her teacher (brave thing to do), and gets hit with interrogation, confinement, ostracism, and suspension. According to her father, she was "treated as if she was a terrorist."

Over a pocketknife.

This struck me personally because of a recent experience. See, I regularly carry two pocketknives with me, just as I carry my wallet and keys. (I carry two because friends always want to borrow one for a moment, if they know you've got one.) I was looking for an object to use in a passing-game theatrical warmup, and the things I had on hand were my wallet (not passing it), my cell phone (ditto), and my pocketknives. I didn't get a chance to decide against using my knife: the exercise leader rejected it out of hand. Didn't want anyone to hurt themselves on this closed-and-not-about-to-open-by-accident pocketknife.

What struck me then, and strikes me again on reading this article, was the difference in how two people can view a single object. For me, a pocketknife is purely a tool. A screwdriver, staple remover, bottle/can/plastic bag opener, etc. I don't see it as my theatrical comrade saw it, as something with which one is likely to hurt oneself... especially when one is accustomed to using staple guns and power drills.

And I certainly don't see it as the school administrators at Connolly Middle School in Temple, Ariz. would: as "a dangerous instrument capable of intimidating or inflicting bodily harm to another person". What happened to the time when a pocketknife was every American lad's prized possession, a sign of teenagehood? Why is it now that "dangerous items", including everything from shotguns to silverware, can only be trusted in the hands of someone with a badge? (For the record, I was trained in the safe use of a knife, by the Cub Scouts. Anyone who -doesn't- know how to use a pocketknife safely is deprived of both education and common sense, IMHO.)

It hit me again, listening to the radio the other day: It was mentioned that our government's idea of "airport security" is ignoring potential terrorists in favor of focusing on anything that could possibly be perceived as a weapon. A warm, fuzzy, entirely ineffective sort of security.

Maybe it's just my pessimistic side, but sometimes I get the feeling we really are turning ripe for the picking. Only one thing I can speak to for sure. If I end up having a family, my kids will be taught how not to fear a gun. Or a knife.

My brother had this Dave Barry page-a-day calendar last year:

"In the 1950's, medical paperwork was simple: The doctor gave you a bill. That was it. Whereas today, if you get involved with the medical-care system in any way, you will spend the rest of your life wading through baffling statements from insurance companies. I speak with authority here. At some point in the past, some member of my family apparently recieved medical care, and now every day, rain or shine, my employer's insurance company sends me at least one letter, comically titled, EXPLANATION OF BENEFITS. It's covered with numbers indicating my in-network, out-of-pocket deductible; my out-of-network, nondeductible pocketable; my semi-pocketed, non-workable, indestructible Donald Duckable, and so on. What am I supposed to DO with this information?"

Walter Williams always writes such great stuff:

The first principle of a free society is that each person owns himself. You are your private property, and I am mine. Most Americans probably accept that first principle. Those who disagree are obliged to inform the rest of us just who owns us, at least here on earth.

Is America moving from the rule of Legal-unless-outlawed to Illegal-unless-allowed? From English common law to Code Napoleon?
 
Check out this column.

Lately I've been involved in rehearsals for a children's play. Stuart Little, based on the E. B. White book of the same name. Cute play, and the cast and crew are just great. The director's done a great job. I'm stage managing. If you live on the Atlanta southside, and you've got a kid or two you'd like to bring, check out the production company's web site.

But there's this one scene that makes me wonder if Stuart maybe has Pinky-and-the-Brain-like aspirations. It's the scene where he serves a turn as a substitute teacher.

What's the first sign, you ask? Well, his first act as educating authority is the elimination of practical subjects: arithmatic, writing, and social studies. He carefully steers his conversation with the students to the subject of the World Government:

Child 1: There's no King of the World!
Stuart: What's the diff? There ought to be one.
Child 2: Kings are old-fashioned.
Stuart: Okay, then, let's talk about the Chairman of the World.

From there, he convinces his students that if he were World Chairman, a good many of the world's problems would be solved. In demonstrating how he would rule, he teaches the children that laws have value if the Mob can use them as an excuse for ganging up on lone individuals.

I'll agree that "No being mean" and "No hurting of feelings" are good moral guidelines to follow, but they make horrible laws. Entirely too subjective... and sometimes you have to hurt feelings to meet greater moral obligations, such as honesty. So, while I'm sure Stuart would be a great little guy to know, I wouldn't trust any mouse to dictate my life.

It's amazing what a nut case like myself can read into a play. I'll repeat to myself, "It's just a show, I should really just relax." ;-)

I just started reading this book by Terry Goodkind Monday night. Finished tonight. Haven't read 800+ pages of fantasy-genre novel that quickly in a long time. And it's good stuff.

The good guy? A Seeker of answers with a Sword of Truth that can only kill when driven by righteous anger.

The bad guy? A brutal wizard, backed by his brutal People's Peace Army, his greatest power his ability manipulate people through their own willingness to believe that they hold no blame for any of their faults or problems, and that cruelty is mercy.

Yes, in many ways, it's just another fantasy. But I very much like the characterizations. Goodkind's descriptons of human nature ring true. Even the worst of the bad guys doesn't see himself as being the bad guy, but it's not good-and-evil-are-just-points-of-view crud. Evil is clearly what it is, when stripped of half-truths and excuses.

I'm looking forward to picking up the next book.

Got an e-mail from a friend with this anecdote. I was wondering if anyone here could vouch for its verity. True or not, it is a great line to use on the "blame American imperialism" types.

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.