No Subject

[Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>]

Dear visionaries,

I am sorry to leave this discussion just when it gets to the feast of
reason and flow of soul stage. But I will be out of town this next week.
Have fun.

Daniel says: "What she advocates is that laws are created preventing
someone from being fired . . ." But to give liberty (from being
fired) to an employee is the flip side of the coin that takes away the
liberty to fire from the owner. Focusing only on the liberty you
grant is press release philosophy. All laws restrict freedom as
well as grant it. Our debates are therefore about who should enjoy what
liberty and who should be restricted in what way. And so that I may
remain Johnny One Note, by what standard should we make these
decisions?

        

And when,
in Daniel's idyllic scenario, he suggests that Mrs. Schwartz overcome her
bigotries and bake little Jason cookies, just two comments. First, I have
no problem with elderly Lutheran widows showing kindness to anyone,
including homosexual neighbors. Second, I do have a problem with calling
the cops if she does not do it. If a Christian feels morally responsible
to her God for what goes on in her apartment upstairs, to force her to
compromise her religious standards (by passing a law making it illegal to
take sexual orientation into account as she rents) is calling the cops on
her religious beliefs. You are forcing her to conform to your
views, and forcing her to abandon her own. Just say so, and you
will all feel better.

Daniel also said, in response to Doug Jones:
"Not one of the people who belong to this email, whom you've labeled
"Moderns," has advocated violence, but somehow now you've
accused people of it."

        

See above. What happens to those people who say that their Christian
beliefs do not permit them to rent to homosexual couples? Does anybody
say, "I am sorry you feel that way. But after all, it's your
apartment. You bought it." Or do they complain to the people with
guns who have the power to fine and incarcerate? What do you think
violence is?

And Tim Hillebrand is the latest 20/20 participant who believes that we
can somehow be embarrassed by a magazine we have been publishing for
close to fifteen years, and have been mailing all over the country. You
know, when we publish something, we don't mind when folks read it.
Please, have at it. And we don't even mind things taken out of context,
so long as you spell our names right. Like Tom Petty, we won't back down.
You all can try something else now.

Auntie Establishment is to be commended for being one of the few in this
discussion that is actually interacting with what we say. Not that praise
from us will be likely to make her day, but there it is anyway.
She missed one important thing however when she took my last mathematical
observation as supportive of a "breeding for power" approach on
our part.

What actually happened was this. Over the last twenty years, we have
delighted in our children, and have had many of them. We don't shuttle
them off to day care, or leave them with professional care providers. And
we home school them, or have them in schools which encourage direct
parental involvement. Our families are tight. We have had many children
because we love them, despite hostile stares or comments from those
outside our community. To quote a comment made to my wife on the street
years ago, "My, you don't believe in the pill, do you?" But we
didn't mind -- kids are a kick. And, as I can now say, grandkids are a
kick. It keeps getting better.

But then one day, we were distracted from our work by all this
yelling that was coming from the direction of the Moscow School District.
"Where have the kids gone!? How could this have happened?
Maybe they moved out of the state!" And the powers that be
put lighter fluid in their hair, set it ablaze, and ran in tight little
circles. "Where are the kids?" You see the state takes
away money for each little breathing bipedal carbon unit that doesn't
show up, and it turns out this is serious business.

So, against my better judgment, I say something like this: "Um --
maybe you don't have kids in your schools because you quit having them.
And if any actually make it into the womb, you think it should be legal
to get them out of there. Talk about eviction. And if any of successfully
run that gauntlet and actually show up, you provide them with a
fifth-rate education, and turn them loose into your hollow and ugly
world. And maybe you don't have access to our kids anymore because
we looked at all this and quit giving them to you to educate. Just a
thought."

Take care not to get the whole thing turned around. Auntie
Establishment's sign-off -- "breeding my way to a better
tomorrow" reminds me of a joke that can be reapplied to our
situation. Early in the twentieth century, a refined woman from Boston
was at a high brow social gathering, where she met a woman from Chicago,
who didn't quite fit with the refined lady's ideas of deportment.
"Here in Boston," she said with a sniff, "we think
breeding is everything." "Well," the other lady said,
"out in Chicago we think it is a lot of fun, but we don't think it's
everything."