Anyone know of a utility that will read through Apache logs, and then simulate that activity (i.e. replay) to help debug issues?

... are 365/1. Mecco's Star Wars Christmas, with narration by C3-P0.

Just an update. As you may or may not remember, I promised to not lie to my children about Santa Clause. He is someone who lived many years ago and is dead. Now we have a bunch of people pretending to be like him. What is wrong with that?

Last year I saw defeat. My child, despite my best efforts, told me I was wrong. Santa was real.

This year, though I continued to say once or twice the truth, got caught up in the geek factor. My children and I watched in anticipation as Santa was tracked around the world by NORAD. This year it was even better because I could track Santa on Google Earth.

What a great way to teach my child that this is a whole world, with time zones and such. Around the time Santa crossed the Atlantic we gave NORAD a call. No circuits available. As we read the bedtime story we left our cell phone in re-dial, and it never went through.

As it was just my wife and I staying up putting the Santa gifts out, I watched Santa pass over my city. I told my wife even though it wasn't true, there was still something fun about the anticipation. I remember it as a child, and its not really dead now that I know the truth. Odd, huh.

But I see the cracks in the foundation. As my child watched the Santa cam via NORAD, she said, "I want to see Santa land."

"Yeah," I said, "me too. It is pretty odd how he can deliver presents to so many houses while he is flying over these cities".

By the way, if the name of the country is "Samaria" then why are its people called "Samaritains" rather than "Samarians" or "Samarites"? It seems a strange combination of the two suffixes.

In the last JE, I pointed to a rather in-depth study of a single interpretation of a single word. What interested me in it was how the motivation for interpretive speculation was a serious denial that "steel" could possibly have existed. Yet, it could.

The discussion I want to point you to today is a good example of figurative or moral interpretation (as in the moral of a story). A New Testament parable, to depart a bit from the Genesis theme. Again you might see how different starting points influence the outcome of how they read the story. You might even be able to detect where your own starting point might influence your interpretation of the story.

THE GOOD SAMARITAN AND ETERNAL LIFE

MH42 mentioned that I have discovered that interpretation is private. Yet perhaps closer to the truth is as Calvin said to Hobbes, "People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world." There is a process where someone can truly discover the intended meaning behind a story -- whatever worth that might be. And that meaning will have much more to do with our humanity than our personality. The more inspired the writer, the more valuable the meaning. It is somewhat elitist, but that is not what interests me. I find that its accessibility is the most prized jewel in this pursuit.

Now some side-news....

* I fear no spoiler. I finished "The Deathly Hallows".
* I looked at Multiply, but for my purposes I am not interested in joining Facebook or MySpace, or anything like it. I always found the journal system as a way to my submitted Slashdot stories being turned down. Just as the Diary at K5. That is all. I have vamped up my Google Reader and find myself in touch with much more information (Slashdot included) then I can possible digest. Slashdot may not be what it was, but then neither is the Internet, and neither are the people who are a part of it. I do not mourn the loss of the great place it was, because for me the loss happened about 1999.

Next up: Looking at interpretation visually through collected artworks of the Ark of the Covenant.

Deep in the thread of the last discussion, I let slip something of my own view on this general topic of interpretation...

Unfortunately, for all the learning that has been presented here on Slashdot, the process itself has been woefully neglected in everyone's commentary. Many are willing to tell us how smart they are, but smartness is only approximately the same as truth, the best it can ever be is an estimate in matters of cultivating one's own life with richness and truth. I have no problem with that, as I realize for myself that is so far my process. The way to make that further step is my pursuit.

Interpretation is a tricky thing. The Greeks had a concept of "Muses" a team of supernatural beings who whispered great ideas into peoples ears. These muses would give them inspiration, a general get up and go try something new and improved that was from beyond the narrow focus of our survival of every day problems. That was inspiration, and it made everyones lives more rich and full. But they also noted that inspiration, as it was passed from one hand to the next, seemed to dilute or corrupt. Even when copying verbatim, the inspiration of the muse was best found in the origional work, and in Alexandria (IIRC) they tried to collect as close to the original work as they could.

As I continue what has been a very enriching look at the book of Genesis, I find I need to pause a bit and ponder on this topic of interpretation. To those who follow the belief of the muses, interpretation is nothing more than an incomplete copy of the original idea or thought. It is an approximation, a best guess. It is our own words.

And this is probably no better seen than visually, in how people paint or draw their interpretations rather than say them. In the next installment I will study the ark of the covenant, so I will ask for everyone to send me their favorite pictures of what the ark looks like. If you draw your own, that would be even cooler.

But for now, I want to start with another object of antiquity. The steel bow of Nephi, the prominent first author in the Book of Mormon. What makes this fun is that it is more controversial, the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is often disputed. And the presence of the steel bow is a common conundrum in that struggle. The Book of Mormon, as noted by Joseph Smith, was an act of interpretation by inspiration. A single step of interpretation aided by divine inspiration.

So why do I bring this up? Because while the presence of a steel bow is presented as problematic for the Book of Mormon, the King James Version of the Bible mentions steel bows also. But, we are told, that is a mistaken translation on their part because Israel in that time didn't have steel, let alone steel bows. So interpretation is sought to reconcile this dilemma by both Mormon orthodoxy and more generally Christian. But as the following link shows, if the interpretation of the Bible that Joseph Smith had was flawed, then perhaps he knew the problem and aligned the mention with the false interpretation already in place?

Read on as people explore this dilemma through an attempt at understanding interpretation.

So does steel really mean serpentine? Bronze? There are very compelling cases for each. Is the KJV translation just flat wrong on the matter? And did Joseph Smith know it was wrong, but follow along for conformity sake? Though there are other comments along a similar vein, projecting many feelings of frustration on every side as they grapple with the issue, it is with the dry drawn out timing simular to Monte Python that the last comment gets to the punchline. Which I won't spoil for people who wish to read the above thread...

Next stop, the road to Jericho and a lone traveling good Samaritan. And then if no more diversions are requested then we'll head straight for the lost ark. I look forward to seeing entries for the Ark art display :) Just submit them in any of the JE's between now and then.

Many thanks,

Abraham saves the day ... for Sodom and Gomorah?

Its an interesting story, if I have it right. A large multi-national army leaves a large swath of destruction, including Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot, perhaps already abandoned the plains and now a citizen or inhabitant of Sodom, is taken captive along with the rest of the spoils. Abraham takes a raiding party made up of his own employees, and recaptures the spoils. Then gives them back (except for a tithing he gives to the priest).

This brings up one of my favorite people, Melchizedek (various spellings abound) who Abraham payed tithing too and from whom received bread and wine. Long after his brief mention in the Genesis, we see that the priesthood is named after him. It has many differentiating characteristics we learn from the Aaronic priesthood. It is not inherited. The Aaronic priesthood is very formalized and full of ritual. It is the priesthood of prophets and seers who act on a different mission and purview. Melchizedek mysteriously disappears, along with his city Salem from any note of any of the next generations to inhabit the same valley.

Moses perhaps acted under this priesthood when he instituted and officiated in the Tabernacle under this priesthood while the Aaronic was being set up). While Aaron could only visit the Holiest place once a year, and then with obscuring smoke, Moses was in divine presence (face to face) both in the Tablernacle and elsewhere. Perhaps Samuel acted under this priesthood when he was an officiator of sacrifices outside the Tabernacle. Perhaps Elisha who did miracles and sacrifices. Yet why is it still named after Melchizedek?

For something completely different, it was late night on "Coast to Coast" radio with George Nory where a particular woman was on the line accepting calls. She was helping people interpret their encounters with ghosts, etc... One person encountered what she called a "Mel-chee-see-dek" who are a group of angels particularly engaged in helping out us mere mortals. I have no idea where she pulls her "insights" from, nor does that matter much to me. I do not relay the story to paint her as a purveyor of truth. The odd pronunciation (I almost didn't recognize the word) along with the mention of them being an order of angels was interesting in that I was completely unaccustomed to hearing such a reference from such a source. The source seems independent from my own both in insight and in understanding for having some parallel.

But this brings me to ask, especially for those who wonder about my commentary here, what does "priest" mean to you?

For me a priest is someone who officiates in ordinances. My etymological research narrows its origins down to meaning the "lead ox", someone who is lead by the herdsman or Shepard who in turn inspires others to follow. I like that, it relates the word to a concept rather than protocol or official act of authentication though I admit there are those dimensions to the role. Is there something I might be missing? Perhaps in the protocol and authentication?

Are all prophets priests, or are none, or is the fact that the prophets both lead and officiate mean they are other than priests somehow?

The last JE I wrote has me thinking a lot about conversion. I do not know of many philosophies, religions, political parties, that do not attempt in some degree to handle a strange human phenomenon that people may change their minds and wish to join another's point of view.

So, how does your political party, philosophy, or religion handle conversion?

What steps precede a conversion, and what steps certify, mark, or account for the conversion?

How would you tell someone they can be sure that their conversion has set them on a valid path, what re-assurances does the converted have of knowing their change is really for their own good? How do you measure if they are truly converted or just (to borrow from the Republicans) RINO's?

The Jordan Garden:

It is remarkable to me that deserts seem to encircle the most ancient of cities. Egypt is surrounded by a climate that would be a rain forest like the Amazon. There are some sings that it was once that way. The middle east is now very much a desert -- Ur, Babylon, and the setting for this story, Jordan. Even Greece, Lebanon, Syria once had a much richer flora then they do now. A hack anthropologist that the BBC seems to like, (and I like him too in a his-idea-is-as-good-as-another's kind of way) took a submarine into the Dead Sea and believes he's found the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah there.

After a dispute, Lot sets in to this area and lives with a good view of the city lights of Sodom. In contrast to seeing the city lights, Abraham looks every other direction and sees a heavenly promise of inheritance. I think there is something to that the author might be trying to point out.

There was much talk in the last discussion about the nature of Abraham. While simply a father, in many ways his role is very similar to Moses. Their greatest contributions to society, civilization, and this world, were not their teachings, miracles, or lifestyles. Their greatest contributions, to me, are the deals they were able to broker with the God of the universe. But these were more than deals, they were covenants, legally binding contracts for both parties. Legally binding contracts that are open for others to take part in. Open for all of us, no? All who look more circumspectly around than Lot did, who had to be rescued later.

And it just seems to me that for Abraham, his sons, and for Moses and his congregation, it wasn't so unusual to understand with direct conversation, the meaning and role of these covenants. One reason I'm not interested in debating, but very interested in discussing these things is because of my understanding of how that interaction works. And I would rather not get in the way of that interaction happening for anyone by creating in my own words some characterization of it from my own understanding.

So on to the questions:

Sodom is known for the request some citizens made of Lot while some messengers were staying with him. It may be all its known for pending its destruction. Its my understanding that Gomorrah might have a meaning, but that it was named after someone. I'm not sure if any significance is left in the word Sodom other than the meaning people have given it according to the citizens request. (That interchange is coming up, you might want to save your discussion on the more colloquial meaning of Sodom or discussion of that interchange for that chapter). But if you have something on the meaning of those names, I'd appreciate it.

Abraham returned to the place between Beth-el and Hai, mentioned in the previous chapter. How many years transpired in Egypt? Was Lot with him? How is Lot's pending sojourn in Sodom like/dislike Abraham's visit to Egypt?

Abraham is unique. Is he a prophet? Is he a miracle worker? Is he a leader/priest of a nation? The word I most often hear to describe Abraham's role is one that I share -- father.

He is a father, and that is about it. He isn't like other prophets who send a message to the nation to repent, or lead a nation out of bondage, his role is entirely familial as far as I can tell.

He travels in a strange land, and is promised to have that land. But, first he takes a trip to Egypt where his wife is taken. She is freed by a plague on Pharaoh's house and Abraham leaves with lots of cattle and sheep that he got from there.

I'm honestly sure there isn't much more to take from this chapter other than how it is a simplified type of the great Exodus story. And if you ask me, and I'm sure the Exodus story is just a type of the scattering and gathering of Israel that is still in progress. Its all about getting caught up in something, and being rescued or redeemed from the more immediate powers.

A few questions for the scholars:

As usual this is about the meaning of words that are otherwise untranslated. Often a place is named for a particular event or significance to the traveler, so I'm somewhat interested in the place names.

What does Beth-el (a land) mean? That seems like roots I've heard of before, "Beth" and "El".
Hai, is that a word foreign to Hebrew?

Also, I think this was discussed briefly before, but what do your traditions tell you about how Moses compiled the book of Genesis? Was it given by revelation or compiled from sources he might have had at the time?

Meatbrain reminds me of a problemed foster child. One who admits he couldn't care less about society, and that he is abusive. He demands, demands, demands. But when it comes to giving -- he's exempt. He demands proof, but can never give it. He always accuses people of lying, but probably 90% of that is simply his quoting out of context or trying to put words in other's mouths. The other 9.9% are things that are easily clarified, and the last .1% is maybe a contradiction (rather than a lie). To my knowledge he hasn't proven anyone has lied yet.

While in and of itself only a moderately interesting blip on the over-all radar, a there is sort of convergence with Carpenter's own personal administration lockdown at Volokh that makes this interesting to me. Carpenter is the contributor there who writes mainly about his conservative neutering the definition of marriage. However, when called on a few of this claims, (much like Meatbrain) he decided that the comments were way to numerous and needed to be thinned. And that he should close comments much quicker.

One is a scholar, the other is definitely not.

For Meatbrain, it all started when Ed Brayton was deleting Opine posts on his site. You might know this site, its called "Science blogs" but since I've yet to see a real scientific treatment of any topic, I conclude that science must mean anti-religion to them.

It wasn't the first time Ed did this, and most certainly won't be the last. But I read where one commenter at his site was complaining that he didn't have access to comment on another person's site. I sent him this email, which quotes the complaint he registered at Brayton's site:

Funny you should make this comment on Ed Brayton's blog:

And, as always, Gribbit> the Dip[..] lacks the guts to actually discuss his ideas with anyone: "Gribbit's threads have comments closed".

We have a collection of what we call Brayton's greatest hits. You might like to give them a read:

  Part 1

  Part 2

I have to be honest, even Alan who came over to Opine ran scared after a few comments.

So, what is your take? In absence of Gribbit, here is my take on the subject, and the comment section is open.

What ensued were numerous accusations, demands, and other gaffs on Meatbrain's part. You can read the thread, its really quite fun. For instance, he claims to be above having to make an argument or backing up any of his claims (something Op-Ed caught him with later on). But the most interesting was his sheer avoidance of condemning Brayton's administrative lock-down when he was so quick to condemn Gribbit. He instead focused on there being a difference between deleting posts, and closing all posts. I can agree to that, for instance deleting posts can be more prone to abuse. Either way I never got him to condemn the action, so I waited.

As time went by Meatbrain continued to come in and do his little routine for all of us to watch. He would also talk on his own website about what he considered victories in catching others in their lies. But he never did so about Opine, even though he seemed very confident in his claims about us. He would demand, quote out of context, and other dishonest means to accuse others of lying. While pointing out is errors, I bidded my time. I was waiting for a less personally involved time when the conversation had nothing to do with me, and a time when he felt at the peak of his confidence and pride.

Then, I deleted his comment just as I threatened I would. I can hear his screaming keyboard as he types out messages of how I promised I wouldn't delete his comments. Well, I didn't delete those comments, now did I?

Now, he takes it over to his site (which is fine since it saves me the hassle of re-creating his post for honesty's sake). And it wasn't long before I got his admission about deleting comments specifically.

Deleting a comment to avoid the necessity of providing factual support for a claim is intellectual dishonesty.

Although I think in general people would agree though that it is dishonest to use your admin powers to remove arguments you could and should be meeting with facts and reason. Especially when those comments are counter-arguments to your own, and deleting them helps falsely bolster your own argument. But it is enough to show that by his argument, Brayton is dishonest.

And, in an interesting twist, Meatbrain has now banned my IP addresses, on almost the same day Carpenter did. He has also kept a comment (which I will copy below in the comment section) from leaving the moderation queue. I asked him why. I told him I expected him to release the comment for everyone to read (which showed once again that for the most part Meatbrain was being deceitful in his accusations). Well, he deleted that comment too. Here is the snapshot with the comment, and here is the snapshot shortly thereafter (taken with the help of a proxy because of Meatbrain's IP ban).

It seems petty to discuss being banned as if it were an indictment of their arguments. And I could agree with that. The point really is that I'd rather discuss their views with them and their readership, but I'm at a loss as to why that opportunity is being denied -- even at sites with such intellectually propriety and free exchange of ideas as Volokh (though to his credit it seems Prof Volokh had nothing to do with it according to an email conversation with him).

So the moral of this story is, live by the accusation, die by the accusation.

Passing through the channels, I spotted something of a convergence. Michelle Malkin was talking about -- Anne Coulter. These are two people on the same side, both powerful and present personalities, but their styles were clashing. Anne is more raunchy, relying on a ball peen hammer of wit and sarcasm to drive an oftle needle fine and delicate point. Michelle is more like the machine gun, rapid fire facts from all directions to help corral people to her opinions.

But thats not all. The camera pans, and there (if I have it right) was Wonkette if I recognize her hair well enough. Sophisticated and sometimes jovial, she had the difficult position of attacking Anne Coulter while defending Jon Stewart-types in spite of the similarities.

Wonkette (if that is her hair) starts politely talking over Malkin, inaudible chaos ensues momentarily. The host brings them back down, for the impending soft-break. Wonkette is silent just in time to hear Malkin end the conversation like the thunderous clap of fate declaring, "I'm no one to pick a fight with...."

If I can risk making the comparison and leave aside the licentious undertones that might develop, there is the blonde, redhead and brunette. Their hold on the issues is keener than most, and their ability to articulate is much better than most. Like Charlie's Angels they are fighters more than anything else, they were proven in the intense flame wars of the internet trenches.

They make an unusual convergence, like if Jeremy Irons and Christopher Lloyd ever did a movie together. Or when the Three Tenors sang together. Or when the General Lee (in somewhat different garb) and KITT were in the same race, or Godzilla and King Kong meet on the shores of Tokyo. This isn't some strained cross-over like Flintstones and Jetsons (or Timmy Turner and Jimmy Neutron for that matter), this is a real convergence.

1. I always seem to remember what I gave and to whom better than what I received and from whom.
2. It used to be that parents dreaded when "Some assembly required" was written on the box of a child's toy. Nowadays they should write "Some disassembly required," because opening the packaging is surprisingly difficult.
3. Its official, my daughter believes in Santa. The TV is more influential than I am.
4. Gifts are just a reason for people to get together and think about doing something for others.
5. Santa and gift giving make a good way to celebrate Christ's birth -- even though He probably wasn't born in the winter time.
6. Christmas in general is more family tradition than religion. I hope no one is offended if I tell them, "Happy Holidays". I don't believe that the war on Christmas deserves a counter-offensive. There really is something to this time of year that seems to be bigger than any particular religious expression.
7. The Book of Mormon story that runs parallel to the noel is very dramatic. It is a story of a literal war against Christmas -- the first Christmas. And I fear it has elements that parallel to what is happening today and are most foreboding. When people are unsure, that is when they argue and get in fights. When things are made pretty plain to where people no longer are unsure, then the arguments cease. At least for a few decades.
8. Christmas lights are awesome. Some communities are more alive and vital, and it shows especially brightly during this time of year.
9. Its amazing that the winter holidays are so oriented to the night before. Christmas feels like it is over at about 10:30am. Most of the festivities are the month coming up to it, and the anticipation of Christmas Eve. But that is better than New Years which is over around 2:00am, or Halloween which entirely eclipsed long ago the holiday it was the eve of.

Happy Holidays, and here is to hope and looking forward to a new year.

A friend of mine (a self proclaimed liberal democrat) put up a post on Opine about privatizing marriage. I know it is a popular refrain from many here on /. They feel that marriage should be "just a contract" that anyone can write up as they please.

Well, that seems to be like an Escher painting. Looks good on paper but is sevierly self-conflicting in real life. I underline that point in my comment to his post.

[Update: Check out XRLQ's absolute scewering of "Mass Marrier"]

I've said a few times that I've never seen desktops with the same grandeur and artistry that I saw ten years ago. At that time Rasterman was still young, optomistic and dreamy eyed about this emerging Linux desktop. A time before Redhat and corporate mentality eroded all of that unabashed glorious excess.

Luckily I was able to find some screenshots from back in the day. All I can say is check them out for yourself...

The Default desktop was often the best

One thing you miss in the screenshots is how everything would light up as you selected it, as if you were on a theatre stage directing a performance.

Remember this was running on your 486.

Back then #1 was more known for his desktop themes.

Recently in an on line discussion about marriage, someone took pause say this...

OnLawn mentioned that he used to be a libertarian in post #19:

I understand that there are a lot of former libertarians who find that ideology politically impractical, however, how does one make the philosophic 180 from libertarianism to ideological communitarianism? (Assuming that label fits).

You are obviously both rhetorically skilled, but I'm having trouble figuring out how your [marriage] position fits into your overall political philosophy. How do you view the proper role of government in society when you aren't arguing for it to regulate marriage?

I started writing an answer, and wound up writing the opinion piece I've had in my mind to finish for a long time. It is both why I am no longer libertarian and why I am so adamant about marriage.

But it isn't finished. I'll be working on this in this journal, but I could use your help. Grammatical fixes are appreciated but not needed as I will probably put this through my editor (who happens to be my mother-in-law) when it is done. Anything you wish me to fill in, or take out for flow and succinctness just let me know. I may not agree but I always appreciate the help. Now without further adieu,

_____________________________________

The *Proper* Role of Government in Society

How do you view the proper role of government in society when you aren't arguing for it to regulate marriage?

First, a moment on marriage. I argue that the definition and protection of marriage is important in order to protect family governance. It is my right of self-governance that I am fighting for when I demand government to respect it for what it is.

Calling any contract based on a romantic relationship a 'marriage' dilutes (if not completely abolishes) the recognition of the political family unit. Because of the baggage of considering it just as a love-contract, the role of marriage is becomes weak that it is difficult to hang on to self-governance in marriage. Really should the government be interested in the love business? Does marriage keep people from forming their own love contracts now? No. Should government be interested in the political unit where children are placed in the immediate governance of parents?

Now, pause for a bit. What is ironic about that argument is that parenting and governance is a real libertarian dilemma. While they should be deliberating the difference is between good governance (or parenting) to some meaningful conclusion they usually wind up simply driving a wedge between what governance is and what parenting is. This in effort to drive that which is parental as far away as they can.

However governance and parenting not two separate concepts to be driven apart. They are, instead, two applications of the same concept.

Lets take drugs for instance, it is a real major part of the libertarian ideology. I remember about four years ago I wrote up an honest proposal to legalize drugs. It placed much of the power of policing drug use away from the government and into the hands of professional drug dealers. Pharmacists, bar owners, shaman, etc... And it was up to them to decide to sell or not based on the condition of the person they were selling to. Much like doctors do today. These people were then mostly self-regulated by guilds that they were free to form or dissolve on their own. The guilds would be held responsible for the pharmacists under it, kicking out bad doctors and such.

Another attempt so honest and meticulous in proposing decriminalization of drugs I have not ever seen. But the key issue that it addressed turned out exposing the agenda of my fellow (at that time) libertarians. There was but one aspect that I introduced in compromise that apparently there was no compromising on.

You see my proposal was built on accountability. And even though the guilds and other associations were free to form as they wished, and be regulated only by lawsuit according to people who feel themselves harmed by the user's abuse or pharmacists neglect or guild stupidity, my fellow libertarians did not like it. They simply wanted to smoke their weed in peace, no accountability. The isolated garage drug user was not just a hypothetical case to thwart justification of drug law, it was indeed their ideal lifestyle they were protecting.

Well there is only one problem with that. Such a concept does not exist. Nature is a harsh inescapable judge, and will always exact what is due. Perhaps beating nature to the punch are vigilantes who would raise up and hold souls accountable for crimes against their person or property. And then we have children who have no political power pay personally for their parent's selfish decisions.

There is a payment, an economy all around us. And every action comes at a price. You can even draw up good and evil on this axis. Evil (to me) is when you make others pay the price for your actions. Good is when you get what you want at the price you want, paying for it yourself. Good and evil are more than this, but it is sufficient to show that this is a proper moral axis.

When I say price, I should say that I mean exclusively just the consequences of the actions. Not the monetary cost in doing something. Nature is a harsh extractor of consequences. Often it would sooner kill someone than let them learn and reform.

What government does is try to inhibit people from running into the harsh judgments of nature. I call this the doctrine of replaced consequences. Because government can't raise the dead it tries to intervene before that happens and exacts its own contrived set of consequences.

Now I use death here because it is the easy example, I fully admit to it. It is the simple and extreme example that avoids the gray area while I establish my point. But a replacement for any consequence that is beyond societies ability to repair, or even extremely costly to do so, is beneficial. This would include a worker losing an arm, a health care recipient losing a lung, or the emotional scarring incurred with child abuse.

So you get a speeding ticket, a drunk driving ticket, or any other number of citations instead.

Now the objection that libertarians have against this is that it seems too parental. Replacement consequences, to them, is removing their choice in the matter. They can't do drugs because there is a law against it.

Well, fundamental to anyone observing society is the understanding that laws do not make decisions for you. The large number of drug users that manage to accomplish their desires inspire of the law is just one of many examples that show this. People still speed, people still drive drunk, etc...

But what it does do is give cause for pause. It makes sure that people who really want to run off the cliff really, really, want to run off the cliff. Because there is no turning back and saying "oops I made a mistake" while plummeting to your death that these inhibitors make someone think about the consequences before they engage in the behavior.

And now we come to the importance that the family unit has in governance. It is the first, the most compassionate, and the most attentive and immediate unit that we belong to that provides the ability to replace consequences. A time out is easier than prison time. A grounding at a young age is more instructive than unemployment later.

But lets look at what is in it for the parents too, shall we? It allows everyone who wants to the capacity to practice and learn governance for themselves. And this is crucial! Because as a democracy we hold our government accountable. But the ability to practice governance (though not a requirement) enhances our ability to understand government and make a contribution to it.

Dealing with terrorists? A two year old is a terrorist. People stuck on welfare? A teenage loafer is sucking the money from Mom and Dad. As parents deal with these problems they learn principles. And they can in turn apply these principles to government.

Children benefit from instruction from people who understand them best. Parents have the advantage in understanding children because they sharing genetic code which has certain capacities and instincts built in that parents can recognize in their own lives. Parents also are advantaged from the experience of dealing with the same child their whole lives.

And children get representation by both women and men in that governance! A boy learns about women from his mom, and a girl is understood and needs represented by someone who went through the unique experiences of being a girl herself. And vice versa.

Its not the way it always happens, but its such a great way to do things that it must be preserved. All my arguments boil down to the belief that only such equal participation in family governance has the credibility to demand recognition from the state.

Many disagree pointing to the number of families already that do not live in this system. Well we know that the children are disadvantaged in those situations, yet there are those that do pretty well in any case. To bring in an analogy, do you change the requirement for tires to be inflated because not all tires can inflate? How about road debris that flattens tires? What do people do then if its against the law to drive on flat tires?

Well the law is there for everyones protection, the consequences are too great to turn a blind eye. Yet practicality demands an exception in the matter. But writing the exception into the law as equal does nothing but encourage danger.

Well, I hope that answered your question. Oh and I'm not big government. I think a streamlined government means putting more on the states, and the states putting more on the cities, and returning more governance to the families. And that won't happen while people think marriage is just a romantic contract.

The one I take special note of is a little covered item. Apparently after the FMA failed to move to vote in the Senate, the House passed a bill excercising a power granted them in the Constitution. What it says is that the courts are limited in their rulings to not make one state accept another state's marriage (this signed into law by Clinton in 1996).

The power to limit judicial powers is discussed in this JE. It should be an open and shut case, but as the story points out some think that it comes in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's power of Judicial Review (the basis of which is not found in the constitution at all). Just how we got a notion of Judicial review out of thin air is discussed in this JE.

As an anonymous coward raised the very valid question of just how far the Supreme Court powers go, it would be interesting if they feel they have the ability to place precidence over what is in the constitution with something that isn't. I for one would be very happy if defending marriage also winds up helping reset the constitution back to what it was designed to do.

UPDATE:

It turns out folks that this is not a new constitutional crisis. It has happened before. Thanks to "grouse" from K5 for pointing this out...

n Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, Congress had actually removed the appelate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the case even after arguments had already been heard. Here's part of the opinion of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase:

It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal; and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer...

The appeal of the petitioner in this case must be

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

Congress removed original jurisdiction of a lower court in a case sub judice in District of Columbia v. Eslin, 183 U.S. 62. The Supreme Court upheld the Congressional action there as well.

Now, the Supreme Court does change its mind and this was 135 years ago, so it might feel that it can if the jurisdiction-removing clauses, such as this one, that the Republicans have been pushing in recent years are enacted and tested in the courts. In fact, in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, the Court tries to say that the appellate jurisdiction was only removable in McCardle because there was somewhere else for the same questions to be raised. That if Congress tried to say you can't try habeas corpus cases anywhere, that could be overruled by the courts.

UPDATE: Sep 29, 2004
The Washington Times has a larger review of legislation where Congress has used this power.