Thomas Paine: 18th Century Che Guevara

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Founding Fathers, History, Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Liberty, Political Philosophy

My Friday column for October 22 will probably be titled “Thomas Paine: 18th Century Che Guevara.” The column following it, to be published on Friday October the 29th, is “The ‘Moronizing’ Of Modern Culture.”

You’ll have to read the first to appreciate the second, as they are part of a conversation with Dennis O’Keeffe, Professor of Sociology at the University of Buckingham, and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs, “the UK’s original free-market think-tank, founded in 1955.”

Under discussion is the subject of Professor O’Keeffe’s latest book, “Edmund Burke.”

One of the questions I asked Dennis was “Why is it that one rarely hears Edmund Burke mentioned in American public discourse, yet my countrymen know and love Thomas Paine, who sympathized with the Jacobins and spat venom at Burke (‘the greatest Irishman who ever lived’) for his devastating critique of the blood-drenched, illiberal, irreligious ‘Revolution in France’?”

Indeed, although neglected, Edmund Burke’s thinking is central to American—and any other—ordered liberty.

Be sure to read the two columns, which you can follow from Barely a Blog to WND.COM.

I am away at the 3rd annual meeting of the HL Mencken Club. Please join me if you are in the vicinity. The details are HERE.

“You’re The First Line Of Defense For Your Family”

Crime, Family, GUNS, Individual Rights, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Private Property

I’m a hard-core propertarian. This is, in part, because I believe in the sanctity of life—not only in a man’s right to keep his earnings, but his right—even obligation—to defend his life and the lives entrusted to him with all his might. A right that cannot be defended is no right at all. This is why I’d go as far as to say that all burglaries ought to be considered potential home invasions from both the standpoint of the home owner and the law.

Confronted with a criminal breaking and entering, there’s precious little a homeowner can do to divine the intentions of the invader. It should be assumed that anyone violating another man’s inner sanctum, will be willing to violate the occupant.

A home owner ought to be permitted to deploy deadly force in defense of his home and family. In general, albeit with a growing number of exceptions, the Castle Doctrine proceeds from this premise.

Still, you’ll often find reporters calling a deadly home invasion a “robbery gone wrong.” As though the criminals who invaded the home were some modern-day Jean Valjeans. Or that unless the visitors announce their intentions to harm the homeowners, it must be presumed that they intend only to take a loaf of bread—like Victor Hugo’s protagonist in Les Misérables—sate their hunger, and then leave.

In this context, I was stumped when the always-interesting Lawrence Auster bristled because a news reporter used the more severe term for the crime of breaking and entering:

… burglary is when a person illegally enters private property and steals things. A home invasion is when people illegally enter a home in order to terrorize, harm, or kill the residents… If we start calling all burglaries “home invasions,” we lose the distinction between them.

All burglars are home invaders.

The less said about the 2007 invasion of the home of Dr. William Petit of New Haven, Connecticut, the better. I blogged about it at the time. Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky took great delight in raping mother Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her 11-year-old daughter Michaela Petit, after which they strangled the mom and set the home afire before fleeing. The two daughters died of smoke inhalation.

What killer and rapist Komisarjevsky wrote in a 40-page letter to some author is revealing:

“‘All were compliant,’ he wrote. “This time I took a risk, pulled the trigger, and the chamber was loaded. … The Petit family passed through their fears and into terror. … It was captivating, validating that this pain in me was real. … I was looking right at my personal demon, reflected back in their eyes. … Hayley is a fighter; she tried time and time again to free herself. … Mr. Petit is a coward; he ran away when he thought his life was threatened, and ran away to leave his wife and children to madmen…”

AND:

“I’m ultimately responsible for my own actions. … Had Mr. Petit fought back in the very beginning, I would have been forced to retreat. … You’re the first line of defense for your family not law enforcement.'”

[SNIP]

The fact is that these criminals entered the Petit home through an unlocked door. The least a man can do is lock the house before he retires, and if he refuses to arm himself, let him arm an alarm system.

I don’t mean to be “insensitive,” but skirting this indelicate matter simply will not do. Life is too precious.

Obama's "Spendership" (Vs. British Stewardship?)

Barack Obama, Britain, Bush, Debt, The State

“Obama spending stimulates the national debt by $3,039,000,000,000,” blares Andrew Malcolm’s headline in the Los Angeles Times.

The information comes courtesy of “Mark Knoller of CBS News, who is the White House press corps’ chief cruncher of all things numbers.”

“national debt has increased by $3,039,000,000,000, as in, that much more than it was when he took the oath on Jan. 20, 2009, in front of millions of excited witnesses and Aretha Franklin’s huge hat.

“Obama prefers to lay the blame or credit for this gargantuan spending increase at the cowboy-booted feet of his Lone Star Republican predecessor,” writes Malcolm. “During George W. Bush’s Oval Office tenure, the national debt increased more — by $4.9 trillion, in fact.”

“However, Bush took 96 months to do that.”

“Obama has accomplished his spending feat in less than 21 months. Under his spendership the national debt has grown about $4.8 billion every day since he took the oath of office twice, just to be safe.”

[SNIP]

The problem is that no one who follows him will be able to reverse this. How do you turn this around? You can’t, given that the interest alone on such stratospheric debt is insurmountable. There is no returning America to a place of financial safety.

Putting up a pretense means, at the very least, doing what David Cameron is attempting in the UK.

Incidentally, can you imagine how apoplectic National Review (with the exception of the two non-neocons on staff) would become if BHO “announced plans to cut its military personnel by 10 percent, scrap 40 percent of the army’s artillery and tanks, withdraw all of its troops from Germany within 10 years, and cut 25,000 civilian jobs in its Defense Ministry”?

UPDATE (Oct. 20): British Stewardship? To listen to Daniel Hannan—English politician, commentator on all things American—the US is not as deep in trouble as the UK. Understandably, a rabid rah-rah for America comes with being a Fox News expert.

Yes we have fabulous founding documents and principles, but these have been flouted for at least a century. According to the facts mentioned in “Statism Starts With YOU!”, most Americans adore “Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — which combined, account for close to half of the federal government’s budget.” And “only 7 percent of the country will consider slashing the first two welfare programs; a mere eleven percent of those living in the ‘Land of the Free’ are prepared to pare down Medicaid.” (One Tea Party slogan read: “Keep the government out of my Medicare!”)

I cannot comment with any degree of authority whether there are differences in attitudes to entitlements between us and our cousins across the pond.

One thing is indisputable: Unlike in the UK, successive American governments—and the governing class—have been unique in working against the economic interests of their countrymen and their country. (Treason?)

BBC News: “Chancellor George Osborne has unveiled the biggest UK spending cuts for decades, with welfare, councils and police budgets all hit.”

A “19% average cuts to departmental budgets,” as well cutting “higher education spending by 40%, flood defences by 15% and sport England and UK Sport by 30%”—this is better than increasing spending as we are. Of course, price controls, such as on rail fares, are being tinkered with, namely “allowed to increase by 3% above RPI inflation from 2012.”

No doubt, certain cuts are an illusion, to be replaced by other, slightly modified programs. But again: better to fire 500,000 state workers than to hire 1.4 million census stalkers.

Don Draper In Love

Feminism, Film, General, Hollywood, Pop-Culture

“It’s refreshing to see a Golden Age of Hollywoodish leading man like tall, dark, and handsome Jon Hamm, who plays creative director Don Draper as the strong, silent type” in “the cable period drama Mad Men.” So wrote Steve Sailer.

The character Hamm plays is a complex character. And he does not talk a lot. My favorite people ration speech.

The nostalgia the production triggers is also “nostalgia for the days when women had soothing, soft voices, spoke in complete sentences, and seemed so much smarter and refined than their modern-day, emancipated shrew sisters.”

Now, Don Draper finds himself in love with just such a lady.

Dreamy.