Saturday, March 06, 2004


As a libertarian who sees no need for government in regulating marriage anyhow, I have no dog in the current fight over homosexual marriage. I think that marriage should simply be a personal and private contract that can be enforced like any other contract. As Tibor Machan says here: "Sure, the Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed the right of gays to get married. Did that shove anything down anyone's throat? Not by a long shot, no more so than a court's affirming the right to be free of enslavement or some other government imposed restriction shoves anything down anyone's throat." But, unlike Machan, I DO find objectionable that unelected judges can legalize homosexual marriage just because they feel like it. They have now "liberated" themselves from all constraints. Judges have always made law. The Common Law consists of nothing else. But the Common Law evolved over hundreds of years as the judicial expression of what the community as a whole saw as just. But note how things have changed: "The Defense of Marriage Act, which became law eight years ago, was enacted overwhelmingly by Congress, with margins of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate. Public opinion polls show similarly high support among Americans for defending marriage." Judges who try to usurp democracy by making the law up as they go along clearly are one of America's biggest problems. The homosexual marriage issue is only a sideshow to that more basic problem. I think the constitutional amendment that GWB should be concentrating on is one that would allow the people to vote any judge out of office. People might eventually take to shooting them otherwise. They are pure power without responsibility at the moment. That cannot go on forever.

NYT gets real about poverty: "Now many scholars from across the political spectrum agree that money alone will not significantly improve the lives of poor families. "Not only does behavior matter," Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution wrote in The Public Interest last year, "it matters more than it used to. Growing gaps between the rich and poor in recent decades have been exacerbated by a divergence in the behavior of the two groups." If you graduate from high school, wait until marriage to have kids and work full time (at whatever job), it is almost certain that you will not remain poor. Sawhill's research indicates that we could double the amount we spend on welfare programs, and we would not make an important dent in poverty."

Hugh Hewitt says that current Leftist beliefs are simply silly: "John Kerry... stated bluntly that George W. Bush heads the "most inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the history of this country." No matter how one evaluates recent events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya--and they look pretty good to me--they cannot seriously be compared negatively with losing a war in Vietnam, watching Iran slide into virulent Islamism, or allowing Osama bin Laden to nest and metastasize in Kabul and its precincts. Still, millions of Americans will believe Kerry's outlandish excess not because of evidence that he has presented, but because they want to." For those who do not know their history, the last three disasters Hewitt lists happened under Democrat Presidents (LBJ, Carter and Clinton).

Communist Vietnam has a new friend: Germany, of course. Communists are MUCH easier to get on with than that "Hitler" George Bush.

Carnival of the Vanities is a little late this week but as good as ever.

I have just posted here the latest observations from Chris Brand. He is enjoying the divisions among feminists over the publicity-hungry Naomi Wolf.

The wicked one has just put up some light-hearted comments about Israel, improbable though that may seem.

I have just posted up what seems to be just about the last of my published academic journal articles. See here or here. It shows that criminals have very anti-authority attitudes -- which should be no surprise -- but psychologists generally seem to believe the opposite! I do have one other article in print but no lonnger have a copy of it so cannot post it up. It is: "Acquiescent response bias as a recurrent psychometric disease: Conservatism in Japan, the U.S.A. and New Zealand" It is in a German journal that no library in Brisbane seems to hold: Psychologische Beitraege of 1985 (pages 113-119) so if anyone can dig a copy out of THEIR university library and either scan it in or mail me a xerox of it, that would be appreciated.


The Left have always wanted more spent on welfare and made "Fascism" a swear-word. President Bush deposed a brutal Fascist dictator and sponsored a big expansion of welfare. But instead of being admired by the Left, he is hated with a passion. What does that tell you about the Left? It tells you that they have no principles at all: That everything they have ever claimed to stand for is fake.

Three more examples of Leftist dishonesty: They blame the 9/11 attacks on "poverty" in the Islamic world. Yet most of the attackers were Saudis and Saudi Arabia is one of the world's richest countries! They also say that they oppose racism yet support "affirmative action" -- which judges people by the colour of their skin! They say that they care about "the poor" but how often do you hear them calling for the one thing that would bring about a worldwide economic boom in poor countries -- the USA and the EU abandoning their agricultural protectionism? Leftists obviously care more about conservative farmers than they do about the poor!

Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


No comments: