Category: snivelry

In 2000, running for office for the first time as a Hawaiian resident, with neither a web-site nor an e-mail address of my own, I was invited by Ko’olau News to participate in The Level Playing Field. This was an invitation to all qualified candidates for public office to submit written responses to their questions on a variety of topics that were then posted on their site as a public service to their readership on Windward Oahu. The most memorable and enjoyable of their assignments was to write an essay illustrating what the participants imagined might result from their run for office. Editor Shannon Wood stipulated that the candidate should imagine that he or she was elected to office, and that a fictional reporter or essayist in the year 2059 was describing our impact. Letting my imagination run away with me for a while, this was my response.

Centennial
by Adam Felix Greigh Duquesne
2 Emmalani Street, Kawaihae Village
Onizuka County, Hawaii, usa
Thursday, 6 March 2059

It seems that Pops was right about at least one thing. Alan Greenspan didn’t live forever. Fortunately, we managed to return to the Constitutional Bi-Metallic Standard before the Federal Reserve System was dissolved and monetary authority returned to the Treasury Department.

As I write this today in response to Kiliana’s kind request, it occurs to me that today is the birthday of that veritable savior of the American economy. I’ve taken to flipping a Twenty Dollar gold piece bearing The Maestro’s effigy, a practice that Pops would likely endorse, though he would prefer that Calvin Coolidge had remained on the Twenty and handed a larger piece over to Greenspan’s memory.

But popularity wins out on the more commonly circulating coins, and there’s little chance of shaking Reagan loose from the Five Dollar silver, or Edison from the Deuce, or Ike from the Single, so it’s the Twenty Dollar gold for the last Chairman of the Fed. America will adjust to Cool Cal’s displacement. America has always adjusted.

Maybe I get a little ahead of myself. Mother had a way of reworking Pops’ advice. Pops would say “Open your eyes first and your mouth last.” Mother would simply say “Start at the beginning.” Much more elegant and to the point. Of course, she started out HER political career very simply at the age of nine years by saying, “My Dad is running for Congress. Please vote for him.” Ever to the point.

As for me, well, the son of a President doesn’t have to do anything to distinguish himself. Really, he can’t, unless he pursues the life himself. Not for me. Pops lived for the theatre, and he found the public arena to be the grandest stage of all. Mother followed him and Granny at an earlier age than they started, and soared beyond their wildest accomplishments.

And as for me? Well, I think I’m starting again. Verbosity has always been a Greigh family characteristic. I am the son of our recently retired President. Many of you voted for her. A few of you hated her, three of you tried to kill her, and, according to the polls, most of you loved her.

This story is not about her, or about me, but about her father, my grandfather. I call him Pops, she calls him Daddy, and his supporters know him as Citizen Greigh. His friends call him Lehr. He was a member of the Congress at the beginning of this century, and later our first Libertarian Secretary of State. He would take issue with that, as he claims that Thomas Jefferson was just about our first libertarian everything, but he’s discussing philosophy, and I’m talking party label.

He wouldn’t let the issue go until I clarified it precisely. My grandfather, Lawrence Gene Greigh, after serving as Hawaii’s first Libertarian Representative to the United States Congress, was appointed Secretary of State in America’s first Libertarian Administration. He is an argumentative old cuss now, just starting his second century, and unavailable for comment, as he is vacationing in the Asteroid Belt and almost certainly has his cel-vid disconnected. Since he is unable to speak for himself just at the moment, and Kiliana insists that Ko’olau News has strict deadlines, his legacy is at my mercy.

Pops first ran for the Congress in 1982 at the delicate young age of 26, still wet behind the ears, still fresh from his service in the United States Air Force, and still an undergraduate at Oregon State University studying physics and mechanical engineering.

In those days, the Libertarian Party did not enjoy the universal ballot status that it does today. In fact, it, and many other “third parties”, were quite ruthlessly excluded by the “Democrat” and “Republican” parties, who have since joined the Federalists and the Whigs in historical oblivion. Today, with universal suffrage, liberal ballot access requirements, and proportional representation in most States, the “Bipartisan” stranglehold on political consciousness is as obsolete as slavery, witch hunts, and the “war on drugs”.

Anyway, since Libertarians were not on the ballot in Oregon in 1982, Pops ran a very modest write-in campaign. He got very little attention from the press (as they tended in those days to focus on the “horse race” aspects of a contest, rather than the ideas of the candidates), and fewer votes. The next fourteen years are a little fuzzy. He remained interested in politics and the theatre, I guess, but it wasn’t until 1996 that he ran again. Again from Oregon’s Fifth District, and this time the Party enjoyed hard won ballot status that would not be snatched away by incumbent perfidy. His modest showing in ‘96 (just under 2%) did nothing but encourage him to press his case. He was resolved to run again and again every two years, building his name recognition, widening his network of support, training himself, refining his approach, and, as he likes to say endlessly, “banging his drum.”

Life intervenes, Mother quotes John Lennon: “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

Pops did not run in ‘98, as he’d intended after the ’96 election. He even toyed with the notion of entering Oregon’s Republican Primary for the sake of expediency and “respectability”. Fortunately he managed to avoid so base and superficial a scheme. He confessed to me when I’d asked him about it that he “wanted to win, and if I couldn’t win, I’d like at least to be taken seriously.” Stubbornness won out, thanks in part to circumstances (about which more anon), and he reconciled himself to Libertarian loyalty and possible “third party” obscurity. He couldn’t have been luckier. It turns out the “obscurity” was a kinder and gentler fate than Republican oblivion, but that would take a while.

Circumstances, on the other hand, will ever intervene in our lives. Due to a combination of factors (professional dissatisfaction, wanderlust, and Granny’s precarious health in those days, in the summer of 1997, Pops and Granny packed up Mother and the rest of their lives, and moved to the Big Island. “For the first time in my life,” says Pops, “I knew I was home. This is where I will plunge in my roots.” So they settled in to their new homeland, bought this very house that they later sold to me, and proceeded to firm up their new network.

“Your Grandfather is very good at taking the credit,” says Granny, “but the truth is I had to push him every step of the way. He wouldn’t have done it without me.”

“We couldn’t have done it without us,” answered Pops. “Moving here or buying this house or rebuilding half of it. It was all teamwork.”

Sometimes Granny just smiles and lets him have the last word. He does seem to enjoy it so. They’re very good for each other. Still they squabble endlessly. Two months ago at their 70th wedding anniversary they were dubbed “The Bicker Brats” by my great uncle. That one actually shut Pops up for almost thirty seconds, during which time Granny couldn’t stop laughing.

So anyway, back on track. Because they had the logistical consideration of the moving and the house and the new jobs and Granny’s health issues, Pops took a pass on the ‘98 elections. He excused himself as follows: “I insist that I will always have a Libertarian to vote for for the rest of my life. I’m done with voting against. In 1998 Noreen Chun was on the ballot, and I was proud and pleased to vote for her, and even willing to stand aside if she wanted to take it on again in Y2K. But I will always vote for a Libertarian, even if it has to be me.”

Since 1996 he has managed to keep that pledge to himself and to America, always voting for a Libertarian, and through the Noughties, either voting for his election, or re-election, and later his successors in the House, after he’d moved on into the Cabinet.

During the first few elections of the century, Libertarians started trickling into the Congress. Once they finally precluded either the Republicans or the Democrats from achieving an outright majority, the Libertarian micro-minority exhibited astonishing innocence. They were naïve enough to expect one party or the other to approach them and propose a coalition majority with a libertarian tilt. But, when the Bipartisan Super-majority coalition was formed instead it first looked to be pretty grim, as Libertarians were excluded from any meaningful committee assignments.

The maneuver, however, soon backfired. The voting public began to realize that forty years of Democrat control produced dangerous inflation, hideous wars, and suffocating regulations. Another decade of Republican control, rather than turning anything around, increased the budget, increased taxes, and increased regulations. After two years of undisguised Bipartisan collusion, it became clear to all but the most dedicated partisans that the “Me-Too Party” and the “More-of-the-Same” Party were as different as night and evening.

The next election produced a mix of Libertarians and Greens and Constitutionalists and a few Bipartisan vestiges, but America hasn’t gone back, and as the practice has proven the premise, the Libertarians continued to gain ground until they finally achieved the outright majority that they have enjoyed since. The Greens and the Cons and the Dems and the Reps have since joined Libertarian ranks, or collapsed into the Socialist Party, and America is once again a two party system. That seems to be our fate. America has always adjusted.

And we’ve had a great deal to adjust to. As the Sovereign State of Hawaii celebrates its centennial, we fly a flag with (so far) fifty-four stars. For a few months only it was Alaska, and then for almost fifty years Hawaii was America’s “New Kid on the Block.” Puerto Rico joined the Union in 2008, just a year short of Hawaii’s Golden Jubilee, and just in time to get in on the States of the Union Commemorative Quarters Celebration.

With two native Spanish speakers in the Senate, and seven new Hispanic Congressmembers, Anglo-chauvinist hysteria almost undid us, but also led us quite naturally to accept Jamaica and Belize when they petitioned for cession in 2016. And that makes only fifty-three stars on our flag.

Like Alan Greenspan, it turned out that Fidel Castro also could not live forever. After his final heart attack, Senor Ortega struggled for a couple of years to hold it together, but a half century of socialist mismanagement had reduced Cuba to the most impoverished basket case in the hemisphere. After Bay of Pigs II, there was little resistance to the notion of bringing Cuba home. It still has the lowest standard of living, the highest infant mortality, the shortest life expectancy, and the greatest illiteracy of all the States, but it has come a long way, and Governor Ros assures us that it will soon close the gap with Mississippi, Alabama, and Puerto Rico.

The notion of Statehood for the District of Columbia was neatly short-circuited by the passage of the 28th Amendment, which Pops introduced in his first term in the House. DC gave up its three Electoral College votes for President, but in return received an actual voting Representative in the Congress. No Senators, of course, as they are strictly reserved for the States. Briefly, for those of you who don’t keep track of such things, the 28th Amendment grants representation in the Congress to all Federal Districts, Territories, Possessions, and Protectorates in proportion to their actual numbers just as if they were States, but no representation in the Senate. In addition, it grants these same entities Presidential Electors equal in number to their representation in the Congress. At present, then, DC has one member, Samoa has one, the Lunar Settlement has one, and Guam and Saipan and the rest of the Marianas have two altogether.

Back home in these islands, the pace has been a little slower, but the changes have been inexorable.

The Sovereigntist/Secessionist movement reached its crescendo at about the same time that Libertarians achieved their first working majority coalition with the Republicans and the Constitutionalists. As federal assets were being divested to resolve the debt and retire Social Security, Pops included the “Millennial Mahele” rider. Those federal lands not essential to national security, nor having unique historical significance, were returned to all the peoples of the islands on the basis of ancestry, nativity, and longevity. The ancestry component was his only public racist act and he refuses still to apologize for it.

“We are all Hawaiians, whether we were born here or not,” he said when he introduced the amendment, “whether our ancestors arrived here from the Marquesas or Tahiti, from India or Indonesia or Indiana. We all deserve a piece of the pie, but some of us are going to get bigger pieces. Crimes were committed against the Hawaiian people and the Hawaiian nation, but the criminals are all dead and the original victims are all dead. We are left to pick up the pieces. This is my compromise. For every year you’ve lived here you get credit. For being born here you get credit. For paying taxes here you get credit. For tracing your grandparents in these islands to the eighteenth century you get credit. How much remains to be seen. The catch is, you stop your whining and get on with your lives. Now let’s hammer out the details.” And of course, Hawaii has adjusted to all the extra private property. There are a few competing nativist enclaves, and by and large the Hawaiian language and culture continue to flourish. It is, after all, an integral part of our unique heritage. And of course the whining hasn’t stopped, but at least the volume has been turned down a bit.

When the Democrat/Green/Socialist dominated Senate attempted to push through the Inter-Island Highway System, and the Lib/Rep/Con controlled House killed the measure, Pops nearly lost his job. But with the economy newly stimulated by the substantial tax cuts and regulatory relief, with the population increasing on the neighbor islands while Oahu’s flattened out, some investors took the notion and ran with it.

Inside of two years, a system of tunnels had linked Oahu and Molokai and Maui and Lanai. Later, when Kahoolawe was finally cleaned of live ordnance by violent criminal petitioners (with surprisingly few casualties and all the promised commutations), it and the Big Island were connected to the traffic grid.

Of course the airline lobby shrieked and howled that the tunnels were a threat to public safety. And it is a matter of knee-jerk reflex among the Socialists and the last remaining Greens that the State Government should seize the tunnels from the predatory Road Company and operate them for the benefit of all Hawaiians, rather than let them enrich a few greedy investors. Most people, however, rather enjoy driving from island to island and don’t mind tossing a few silver coins into a wire basket (or delivering their numbers up unto the beast; choose your lane). We remember what air travel used to cost, both in money and in time. It’s faster to drive.

Besides, even among the tunnels there is competition, if you don’t mind driving the long way around sometimes. After NASA built the magnetic induction track from Puolo Point to the peak of Mauna Kea to launch cargo canisters into orbit, it leased space on the structure to other investors so there is now an express route from Kauai to Hawaii, with links to the southern coasts of all the islands it passes.

I’m going to have to wrap this so I can get back to work, but before I depart I’ll leave you with this last bit. Since Mother left office there has been talk of Pops returning to the public arena and making another run at the White House. Twelve years as Vice President under two separate Presidents apparently hasn’t cured him of the notion, so he refuses to rule it out. I think he’s actually taking the idea seriously.

America will have to adjust.

update 180110: Blue sky predictions — especially the self-serving variety — are reliably embarrassing in retrospect. Alan Greenspan may yet live forever. I’ve got another four decades for the universe to improve my point spread. That’s all I can hope for at this point, as I’ve clearly lost the overall game. I was not elected. The march of Fed Chairs continues post Maestro. We have no circulating Hard Money in America, though the Confederate Mint, the Liberty Dollar, the Lakota Republic, and a host of others (metallic and cybernetic) are making inroads. I’m also rather less enamored these days of Dr Greenspan, in light of further performance by him and a little more study on my part.

I don’t now see a resurgence of the “Socialist” brand name. It’ll have its adherents, but never “major party” status. In a generation or so, at the present rate, I picture a major Libertutionist/Constitarian fusion party (called Libertarian or something else) and a reunited Democratic-Republican Party, maintaining continuity through a formalization of the Neocon/Leftie Axis. In a generation or so after that they’ll go back to calling themselves Democrats or Republicans but they’ll still be the same Bipartisan Buttinskies that we’ve suffered for centuries.

As my political aspirations waned, I did not retain my “Libertarian purity.” In 2004, briefly, I was a candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination for the Hawaii State House (“Today, I come home”), but bowed out in deference to the superior candidate. If he’d spoken at Hilo when I did I might have saved myself a couple of weeks of wondering, but hey, auditions are fun, too! My lack of partisan fidelity came to its crescendo in 2008, when I could not bring myself to vote for Bob Barr. I didn’t hesitate over Chuck Baldwin, even though he and I are quite distant over substantial social issues. As a Constitutionist, endorsed by Good Doctor Paul, and I believe them both to be sincere federalists, I had no quarrel with seeing Baldwin’s party in Washington City. I just would likely NEVER vote for one of those ultra-religious types for LOCAL office. But as long as they recognize the limits of federal authority, they‘re fine in that sphere.

Granny won’t be making our 70th, and there’s just waiting to see if I will. In addition to graduating into Lethargy Lad’s Rogues Gallery of Former Arch Nemeses earlier this century, she died last summer after years of valiant struggle and heroic optimism. (see Eulogy for a Drama Queen elsewhere in this file)

Our flag still holds steady at the nifty fifty. Frustrating for an expansionist.

And of course, the overall theme of the piece was based on the faulty premise that a “voting public [would begin] to realize” anything beyond the sound bites that most impress their pals. If I ever run again I should change my name to “As Seen On Teevee” That just might give me a dirty-fightin’ chance.

(Friday, 15 February 1985, Oregon State University Barometer)

There is an implication in Burt Merritt’s latest column (“Phony elections,” 13 February) to the effect that there was no difference between the bipartisan candidates in our last election.  Surely there are zealous bipartisan supporters who would take issue with such a thesis.  They may be right. The verity of the bipartisan position that there is a world of difference between the Republican caucus and the Democrat caucus rests upon the coherence of your values.

If you believe that every taxpayer has an obligation to provide free abortions to every American woman who needs one, there is a distinct difference.

If you believe that the federal government should spend more stolen money on national defense, and less on mass-transit, there is a distinct difference.

If you believe that young American adults have a duty to sacrifice two or three years of their lives (or face imprisonment) to serve their communities in the name of Universal Slavery ( — er — “Service”) there is a distinct difference.

If you believe that the Drug Enforcement Agency has a moral duty to break down the doors of peaceful pharmaceutical entrepreneurs, confiscate their property, and shoot them in the back as they attempt to preserve their liberty, then… Wait a minute, poor example, better scratch that one.

But I did come up with three distinct differences. How substantive these are is for you to decide. As George Harrison said, “It’s all in what you value.”

As Patrick Henry said…

update 180131: I’m still not going to finish that ellipsis…
(I’m leaving it as an exercise for advanced students.)
Burt Merritt is an alias for correspondent JM.

Like many the partisan Libertutionist, Constitarian, Commie, or Greeniac, I will invoke the Bane of the Bipartisan Blur over and over. On my 2002 campaign website I said: “It’s a mistake to claim that there are no differences between Republicans and Democrats. Of course there are. Just as there are differences between hanging and the firing squad. Between electrocution and lethal injection. Sometimes even as vast as the difference between cast iron handcuffs and the nickel plated variety. One set will chaff a little more than the other, but both will keep you securely bound.” There are lots of differences, great and small, and it probably helps our credibility to avoid using absolutes, even over partisan distinctions. Surely there are differences between Repucrats and Demoblicans. Strictly speaking, shit-on-rye and shit-on-whole-wheat are different sandwiches.

“Democratic” (Friday, 24 February 1984, Barometer)

Correspondent RA’s proposal to abolish the Electoral College would likely not come to fruition by November 6th. Nor do I think that it’s a very good idea.

RA’s objection is that the Electoral College is “undemocratic.”  That is its purpose.  The Electoral approach diffuses any concentrated popularity that candidates may possess in population centers or among special interests.  This induces candidates to address issues of national scope and gives voice to the hinterlands.

North Dakota, with about a quarter per cent of the US population has 3 out of 538 electors or about a half per cent voice in the selection of a president. California, with ten per cent of the nation’s population only gets an eight per cent say. This is terrific for North Dakota and Alaska, and not too bad for California and New York.

The principle of democracy (“rule of the crowd” vs monarchy, “rule of the crown”) indicates that California should overwhelm North Dakota, as majorities are democratically “entitled” to impose their wills upon minorities. The function of a republic, however, is to insure the representation of all interests, even the unpopular and the unnoticed.

update 180109: I am still very much grateful for the protections of the Electoral system, as it has saved us twice since the above was written. First from HALGOR 9000 starring in 2001, then from President Pants-Suit today. Prior, it also favored Hayes over Tilden, and Harrison over Cleveland. I didn’t have a lot invested in Sam Tilden, but I am partial to Cleveland, and think that Benjy interrupted what should have been a glorious three terms!

“Do we want theism?” (Wednesday, 23 May 1984, Gazette-Times)

I appreciate that correspondent BH (of the Concerned Women for America) is dissatisfied with the government schools (“not neutral” May 17th). I support all parents’ rights to determine the philosophical content of their children’s education.

Toward that end, the state’s oligopoly on education must be broken through pro rated tax credits for private tuition, education vouchers, or any other step away from statism. As long as education is controlled by the state, the curricula will be determined by the democratic will of the zealous. It is tax-funded education which is the true danger, not some new dogma the School Board may be embracing.

However much I may otherwise agree with BH, I must differ with her assault on atheism. (“Secular humanists are open in their antagonism toward traditional family values and their use of the public school system to teach a new religion of atheistic humanism. Secular humanism is a religion and has been declared such by the Supreme Court. When you send your children to school they are being taught religious values, the values of atheistic humanism… Humanists have declared that America will be atheist by the year 2000… Do you really want to live under atheism? Let Marx and Stalin be your answer.”) As an atheist father of two, I care deeply about individual freedom for the present and for the future. There is no necessary alliance between atheism and socialism; rather the contrary. The bulk of my atheist acquaintances are avidly pro-market, pro-choice, and pro-life, with a profound distaste for socialism, Marxism, statism, or any other selfless scheme for the subordination of the ego to some amorphous “greater good.”

It is theism which teaches self-abnegation, that only through the surrender to gods can we have any value. Theism and statism both appeal to that selfless reflex which is characteristic of insects, but a discredit to man.

Do we really want to live under theism?
Let Torquemada and Khomeini be your answer.

update 180109: I’m not usually hostile toward religion. The fact is, I envy the faithful their belief in immortality, I suspect it’s an enormous comfort. I don’t go looking for fights with folk, but when they attack (“above and below us”) I get to strike back. Rabbi Yeshua may have been talking to me when he admonished us to “turn the other cheek”, but I wasn’t listening.

In my eagerness to defend my “faith,” I neglected to point out to BH the error of her argument (appeal to authority) wherein she cites the Supreme Court as the arbiter of what is or is not a “religion.” Seems to me they’ve also been cited in the matter of what is or is not a “person.” (When it comes to their moral authority, I say, “Tell it to Dred Scott.”) Trickster Penn Jillette pointed out years later that describing atheism as a religion was a lot like describing not collecting stamps as a hobby. Theism, archism, and hobbies are all affirmative positions. Not having them is simply not having them

Fortunately or otherwise, “humanists” seemed to have missed the mark in their projection of an “atheistic” twenty-first century. The “War on Christianity” goes on, and Christianity continues to keep pummeling us. General Lee‘s followers may have thought it ennobling to struggle so valiantly for their “Lost Cause,” but I just find it frustrating.
Yeah, and ennobling.. How great I art.

“Choose Memorial Well” (Saturday, 15 January)

Tom McCall’s family has suggested that any intended memorial be contributed in his name to either the Nature Conservancy or the 1000 Friends of Oregon. Such contributions would be altogether fitting, since these organizations represent two of his widely disparate passions.

It is important, though, that we understand the fundamental differences between the 1000 Friends and the Nature Conservancy, so that we can adequately decide how we would like to remember Governor McCall.

The Nature Conservancy is a private organization which purchases tracts of land so that they may be removed forever from the threat of development. This is laudable; individuals, including corporations and organizations, have the right to control their property as they see fit. The Nature Conservancy is an excellent way for committed environmentalists to put their monies where their mouths are.

The 1000 Friends of Oregon, on the other hand, is a cheerleader group for the state Land Conservation and Development Commission, which is dedicated to restricting the peaceable disposition of private property.

So choose well. How shall this stellar figure of Oregon’s history be commemorated? As an advocate of voluntary cooperation, or as a champion of government interference?

update 180109: Thomas Lawson McCall, Oregon’s Governor from 1967 to 1975, remains dead. I never spoke to him, but I did see him once, and cooked his lunch. I was working the grill at Herpy’s (“When you’re a whole lot more than a canker sore!”) late morning in autumn of 1974 when I saw a sleek road cruiser with Oregon plates reading “1” pulling in to our lot.

Counter Lass said, “Is that…?‘

I said, “Yeah. Look’s like the governor’s limo is in our parking lot.”

Manager SS raced out from the back, and just about wet himself as he fawned over The Gov. Since Counter Lass and I were simply going about our jobs, she taking orders and calling them back to me, and me filling them, we acted like he was another customer in our crowded lobby. “They don’t recognize you, sir!” simpered SS. Then he came back and supervised my work, making sure that the Holy Hefty Gut Bomb was not being sabotaged before it reached the Exalted Palate.

It was all very sad, mostly, but a little bit funny, too. Counter Lass and I just smiled and shook our heads sadly, Mr Tom politely endured it, and his aides cringed at manager SS’ performance.

As far as I know, I’ve encountered three of Oregon’s governors. The above mentioned Mr McCall, Mark Hatfield (when he was Oregon’s delegate to the US Senate, at which time we actually spoke a little as I shook his hand and thanked him for his valiant but futile effort to block draft registration), and Vic Atiyeh (at the Oregon State Fair, where we merely made brief eye-contact and said “Howdy,” or “Salaam,” or “Some Such.”)

“We are no threat” (Friday, 9 September)

In an Associated Press story buried on page 21 of the August 7th Gazette-Times (“Marijuana hunting lawmen upsetting residents”), state and federal goons attempt to justify their siege of Trinity County (California) by insisting that “their methods are both legal and professional.”

“Legal and professional.” That description can just as easily be applied to the Soviets’ recent shooting down of Korean Airlines flight 007, or to the Nazis’ slaughter of European Jews. A profession, after all, is what we do to pay the rent, and the law is simply the will of the local government. There is ever a yawning gulf between law and morality.

If an appeal to decency won’t cut it, let me put it in practical terms.

Dear taxpayers: Last year you spent over two hundred mega-bucks in your desperate attempt to stop me from smoking marijuana. It didn’t work. Next year you’ll spend even more; your hired muscle will harass my suppliers, confiscate his property, and possibly kill him as he tries to preserve his liberty and livelihood.

You might even catch me and put me away for a few years. I still won’t stop, any more than you gave up your beer during Prohibition. Just how long do you plan on slamming your head against this particular brick wall? To paraphrase the bumper sticker slogan, “I’ll give up my roach clip when it’s pried from my cold dead fingers.”

Imagine for a moment that the above was written by your son, whose children could be orphaned when he is abducted by the law, or by your workmate, whom you would never suspect of this “vile deed.” Better yet, pick one of your five nearest neighbors. He smokes pot. Shall you condemn him, too? Whose hedge clippers will you borrow while he’s in prison?

Give up this senseless crusade, neighbor. Not only do we surround you, but we are no threat to you or your chosen lifestyle.

update 180109: correspondent ST (GT 9/23) asks, “How does one surround five? Must have been sucking on one of his pot joints when he figured that one.” [heavy sigh] Pot joint? First of all, the proper term is Jazz Cigarette. Get hep to the scene, ST! And now for a little math (sorry drug warriors, I know it’s not your forte.) One doesn’t surround five. One in five doesn’t mean that one surrounds five. In a village of, say, a hundred, one in five means that, if they’re very careful about it, or they just happen to be standing in the right place at the right time, twenty CAN surround eighty.

ST’s seven paragraph screed includes advocating the death penalty for “drug pushers” (me at the Quikk Stopp) and an indictment of humanism, pornography, and the Supreme Court. And he imagines that I smoke reefer as an expression of “‘civil disobedience’ as it is called by the felons who vandalize industry and are idolized by ‘fifth column’ peace marchers.” To the extent that it compels people to bother me I care what they think, but as long as they’re willing to leave me alone I don’t give fuck all for their tender sensibilities. “Civil disobedience”? Please. I smoke it for fun.

“Campaign of corruption” (Friday, 21 October)

To what new depths of depravity will the Gazette-Times descend next in its seemingly endless quest for sensationalism? Last spring we were assaulted by a full-page profile of a local (gasp… shudder) homosexual. This summer it went even further when actual photographs from a nudist convention were published. As if those weren’t disgusting enough, last month the front page was given over to porno king and pot-tax advocate “Spliff” Haschoiel.

Having sufficiently softened up this pure thinking and self-righteous community with its insidious subversion, the GT delivered it coup de grace when, on October 14, a full page glorification of the “pleasures” of gambling was printed. The poor misguided dupes who were pictured probably thought they were having fun as they invited organized crime, narcotics, and prostitution (which everybody knows goes hand in hand with gambling) into Hoskins.

“But wait!” you say, “It’s just bingo!” Just bingo indeed. Now do you see how effective the GT’s campaign of corruption has been? It has actually made people think that organized gambling can somehow be respectable.

What next, GT? Wine tasting? Free speech? Free enterprise? Living peacefully and minding your own business?

Please do not cancel my subscription; I’m having too much fun being outraged.

update 180110: Cards and letters and calls, oh my! Sometimes my comments would touch a nerve. Once, in response to my criticism of official thuggery in the prosecution of The War on (some) Drugs, a local cop and former classmate of mine (taking no pains to disguise his voice) called the house to advise me to think hard about who’s protecting my family.  (“That would be me, Sean.”  -click- )

My favorite response (outside of abject fawning praise) came from an apparent fan of church bingo who opined that if I was “speaking tongue in cheek” then I ought to “bite [my] tongue.”

“An Immodest Proposal” (May 1982, OL)

Much has been made of Central America’s violent conflicts — the confrontations between “fascist right-wing dictatorships” and “communist inspired left-wing terrorists”. The proposed solutions for these American nations runs the gamut of emotion and ideology — from propping up the military regimes in power in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, to recognition and economic support for socialist Nicaragua and the struggling revolutionaries.

The most palatable course of action for the United States to take that I’ve heard so far is inaction. That is, we provide (the Union, that is, individuals may do as they please) no support for any actions and let matters take their course. This “course of inaction”, however, provides little hope for those Americans caught in the middle. All they have to look forward to is more of the same from the status quo, or, as in the case of Nicaragua, an exchange of despots.

While it may be too late for Nicaragua, and nearly too late for El Salvador, the problem of the remaining states just may be solvable by the same method used for the former republics of Vermont, Texas, California, and Hawaii. Annexation would insure Central America against (external) communist subversion and would free the people from (relative) despotic abuse.

The major obstacle within Central America to annexation, beyond strident nationalism, would be the reluctance of the generals and the aristocracy to exchange their authoritarian fiefdoms for a free democratic state government.

The people of Central America would also be less reluctant to accept absorption into the United States if we were to give a concrete demonstration of our belief in political equality. Therefore, prior to any consideration of annexation, statehood should be proffered to Guam and Puerto Rico. For too long, the Puerto Ricans and Guamanians have been disenfranchised Americans. Once done, we can invite the seven states of Central America into our republic with a clear conscience.

update 180108: While I remain an enthusiastic expansionist, and proponent of Puerto Rican Statehood, I also have plenty of sympathy for secessionists. Seven billion plus sovereign entities by latest reckoning… But, as long as a confederation remains a voluntary union, I’m in!

“Off with its head” (Wednesday, 20 October 1982, GT)

It is inevitable, during an election year, to hear the contenders argue about how best to reduce spending and save tax dollars. Republicans claim that Democrats are too fastidious with their scalpels, and Democrats charge that Republicans are too reckless with their cleavers.

They are both right as they insist that the other is using the wrong instrument. To cut bureaucratic fat you need neither a scalpel nor a cleaver, but a guillotine.

“Concern irrelevant” (Tuesday, 14 December 1982, GT)

“Those who deal and sell drugs (like beer, coffee, tobacco, and whiskey), and other hard drugs, care not for the person they sell to. Their only aim is to make easy money for themselves.”

Sound familiar? It should; with only a change of specific drugs, it is the same irrelevant statement as that made by your correspondent DM in your December 9 edition.

Does it really matter if a merchant cares about his customers? It may to some, but as for me, when I patronize Snarfway, BulkMart, or my friendly neighborhood marijuana connection, all I want is high quality merchandise at a competitive price. Genuine personal concern is not for sale at any price.

DM invokes “lack [of] respect for the law” as an indictment of the entrepreneur’s character. When the law violates our basic human rights to life, liberty, property, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness, then the law is unworthy of respect. As Frederic Bastiat taught us in 1850, the safest way to make sure that the laws are respected is to make them respectable.

There is no moral requirement for us to obey unrespectable laws. I would caution everyone against indiscrete disobedience, the state is more heavily armed than we are, and there are still plenty of zealous informers who would sell out your liberty.

“Valiant filibuster fails” (Monday, 27 December 1982, GT)

I never thought I’d find myself in bed with the North Carolina Senators  Jesse Helms or John East, but politics is passing strange.

Like Mark Hatfield’s valiant stand against Jimmy Carter’s draft registration, Helms’ and East’s ferocious filibuster to protect the innocent from an omnivorous federal government proved futile, and the gasoline tax hike, in the midst of recession, has been inflicted upon the hapless American consumer.

“Intrusion” (Thursday, 28 January)

Once again the Barometer has swallowed the statist line and endorsed yet another intrusion into Oregonians’ personal lives. In this instance managing editor RR applauds the legislature’s proposed “one-time” five per cent income tax surcharge. Of course, he applauds with the proviso that the state realize that this is a one time good deal and that the government get its act together for the future.

What RR fails to realize is the historical fact that any temporary acquiescence on the part of the people is always interpreted by the state as permission to exploit in perpetuity. The fact of the matter is that the current “budget crisis” is a cruel and cowardly hoax. There would be a quarter of a billion dollar deficit only if spending were accelerated as planned. Our meek acceptance of “necessary” tax hikes only invites escalated deprivations by our beneficent civil masters.

“Waste” (Monday, 8 February)

On January 30, Senator Mark Hatfield said government waste was too narrowly defined. Too often we worry about waste, fraud, and abuse (WFA) within a program, but fail to question the usefulness of the program itself. The Drug Enforcement Agency comes immediately to mind. The DEA epitomizes WFA; it wastes tax funds to defraud the public into believing it is necessary to abuse that large minority who use drugs (other than caffeine, alcohol, or nicotine) for recreational purposes.  Other wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive government activities might include the EPA, INS, ICC, FCC, and all extra-national military aid and activity.

“Obscene effort” (Friday, 26 February)

It’s preposterous that an administration that was swept into office on the basis of getting government off our backs plans to prosecute those young American men for the “crime” of noncompliance with mandatory registration for selective slavery.  The “Justice” Department intends to pour our taxes down a rat hole in an obscene effort to disrupt the lives of as many as they can nail.  Since our Constitution clearly prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime, it must be a crime in America to be young and male.

“Property rights” (Monday, 1 November)

It’s not at all surprising that “larger economic interests” would oppose the Measure; they’ve already made it through the land-use maze and are now in the catbird seat.  Just as cabbies and Teamsters don’t want their respective preserves deregulated, “them that’s got” don’t want “them that’s not” to have too easy an access to the market.

All regulations of the economy (whether that be land use or petroleum distribution) are purported to be, when they are first proposed, for the protection of the “little guy” or for some other presumably desirable social purpose.

In fact, the history of economic regulation (professional licensure, intracity transport, dairy price supports) shows that the regulation actually protect the few from competition and cost society in higher prices and lost opportunity.