Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Things That Make You Go Hmmm… II
As the New York Times has begun sniffing around in sealed adoption records in an effort to dig up dirt on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, and the whole sorry spectacle dances around in front of my sites yelling “blog me, please blog me!” I have steadfastly refused. Why? Because the story is not that editors at the Times, and the leftists they represent, are sinking to lower and lower depths in an effort to derail the nomination, for that is old news. The story is in the depths to which the sinking sinks. It’s like Old Rose in that reprehensible Titanic movie tossing the fabled Hope Diamond into the Atlantic — we know the bauble is in the water, what could be news, would be that it has reached a hundred fathoms…two hundred…four hundred.
When we wake up in the morning and find it a mile beneath the waves, when the previous night it was submerged only half that, I see that as back-of-the-paper kind of news, not front-page-above-the-fold news. The damn thing can’t float after all, and it can’t stay still, so there’s only one other direction. The Left will remain in free-fall until something stops them. Point is, their rate of descent is rapid; I can’t get in front of this and I don’t wish to try. I’m a spectator like anyone else. “Tracking” the depth at which we can find it at any given moment, is a job best left to other more talented commentators.
As a spectator though, I have noticed a thing or two. By themselves they’re pretty mundane; tied together they make for something that could be of interest. I should hasten to add this involves a fair amount of reading and won’t be interesting to just anybody — in fact there is one associate justice on the Supreme Court who cannot find it newsworthy in any way, shape or form.
Item!
I have the luxury of being 39 now, which means I can have some experience watching this. Not a lot. A little tiny bit. But if I seek to submerge to some level beneath where the bauble has sunk at this precise instant, my experience does afford me one vantage point to which it has not yet sunk.
“Clarence Thomas” article at Wikipedia:
His grandfather believed in hard work and self-reliance. In 1975, when Thomas read Race and Economics by economist Thomas Sowell, he found an intellectual foundation for this philosophy. The book criticized social reforms by government and instead argued for individual action to overcome circumstances and adversity. Thomas later said that the book changed his life.
Raised Roman Catholic (he later attended an Episcopal church with his wife, but returned to the Catholic Church in the late 1990s), Thomas considered entering the priesthood, and briefly attended Immaculate Conception Seminary, a Catholic seminary in Missouri, where he encountered some racism. Thomas later attended College of the Holy Cross, where he co-founded the school’s Black Student Union and received an A.B., cum laude.
Thomas explored his political identity as he was growing up. He flirted with being a leftist in college, but he was subsequently influenced by the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Later, he gravitated towards conservative viewpoints.
Clarence Thomas was influenced by the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, which he may or may not have (but probably) picked up from the writings of Dr. Sowell.
Item!
Excerpt from Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged:
Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:
“I have no defence.”
“Do you –” The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. “Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?”
“I do not recognise this court’s right to try me.”
“What?”
“I do not recognise this court’s right to try me.”
“But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime.”
“I do not recognise my action as a crime.”
“But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal.”
“I do not recognise your right to control the sale of my Metal.”
“Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?”
“No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly.”
He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretence which all those people played for one another’s benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
“Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?” asked the judge.
“No. I am complying with the law – to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice.”
“But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself.”
“A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it.”
“Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle – the principle of the public good.”
“Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that ‘the good’ was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it – well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.”
A group of seats at the side of the courtroom was reserved for the prominent visitors who had come from New York to witness the trial. Dagny sat motionless and her face showed nothing but a solemn attention, the attention of listening with the knowledge that the flow of his words would determine the course of her life. Eddie Willers sat beside her. James Taggart had not come. Paul Larkin sat hunched forward, his face thrust out, pointed like an animal’s muzzle, sharpened by a look of fear now turning into malicious hatred. Mr. Mowen, who sat beside him, was a man of greater innocence and smaller understanding; his fear was of a simpler nature; he listened in bewildered indignation and he whispered to Larkin, “Good God, now he’s done it! Now he’ll convince the whole country that all businessmen are enemies of the public good!”
“Are we to understand,” asked the judge, “that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?”
“I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals.”
“What … do you mean?”
“I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifices.”
“Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognise its right to do so?”
“Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes – by refusing to buy my product.”
“We are speaking of … other methods.”
“Any other method of curtailing profits is the method of looters – and I recognise it as such.”
“Mr. Rearden, this is hardly the way to defend yourself.”
“I said that I would not defend myself.”
“But this is unheard of! Do you realise the gravity of the charge against you?”
“I do not care to consider it.”
“Do you realise the possible consequences of your stand?”
“Fully.”
“It is the opinion of this court that the facts presented by the prosecution seem to warrant no leniency. The penalty which this court has the power to impose on you is extremely severe.”
“Go ahead.”
“I beg your pardon?”
“Impose it.”
The three judges looked at one another. Then their spokesman turned back to Rearden. “This is unprecedented,” he said.
“It is completely irregular,” said the second judge. “The law requires you submit to a plea in your own defence. Your only alternative is to state for the record that you throw yourself upon the mercy of the court.”
“I do not.”
“But you have to.”
“Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary action?”
“Yes.”
“I volunteer nothing.”
“But the law demands that the defendant’s side be represented on the record.”
“Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure legal?”
“Well, no … yes … that is, to complete the form.”
“I will not help you.”
The third and youngest judge, who had acted as prosecutor snapped impatiently, “This is ridiculous and unfair! Do you want to let it look as if a man of your prominence had been railroaded without a –” He cut himself off short. Somebody at the back of the courtroom emitted a long whistle.
“I want,” said Rearden gravely, “to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it – I will not help you.”
“But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself – and it is you who are rejecting it.”
“I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognised. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice.”
“But the law compels you to volunteer a defence!”
There was laughter at the back of the courtroom.
“That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen,” said Rearden gravely, “and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition – which you cannot force – that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there – I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine – I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me – use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action.”
For the uninitiated, look at this carefully. Ayn Rand wrote a great novel with a huge following. People like me, who like Ayn Rand, do not like the way she writes dialog. We finish fifty pages of this stuff and we think “man, my ass hurts!” and we’re peeved that we spent half an hour reading something that should have been over & done in about five minutes.
She was terrible. George Lucas has more business writing dialog than Ayn Rand ever did. Seriously.
But unlike Lucas, Rand had a style that remains worth inspecting because she uses the style of speaking to differentiate — in a juvenile way, I grant you — heroes from villains. Such an awkward machinery is what we should expect when we read novels written by those who think themselves philosophers first & novelists second. Skim through the excerpt. See all those sentences in quotes with exclamation marks at the end? Those are spoken by villains. Ayn Rand heroes don’t yell. They don’t pause. They don’t have bangs on the ends of their sentences or …ellipses in the middle. They know everything, too. When Ayn Rand heroes ask a question, it is rhetorical. Rand villains exist in a state of perpetual confusion. They never know what to say next. An intellectual argument from a Rand villain is usually nothing more than a European-style “must ought should must gotta should” demand, heavily seasoned with a lot of gulping and gasping. Rand villains are about as stupid as…well, about as stupid as Dukes of Hazzard villains.
So look that over. Not every single word, but just note the flow of the conversation. Got it? Good.
Item!
SEN. HEFLIN:
Now, you, I suppose, have heard Ms. — Professor Hill’s — Ms. Hill — Anita F. Hill testify today.JUDGE THOMAS:
No, I haven’t.SEN. HEFLIN:
You didn’t listen?JUDGE THOMAS:
No, I didn’t. I’ve heard enough lies.SEN. HEFLIN:
You didn’t listen to her testimony at all?JUDGE THOMAS:
No, I didn’t.SEN. HEFLIN:
On television?JUDGE THOMAS:
No, I didn’t. I’ve heard enough lies. Today is not a day that in my opinion is high among the days in our country. This is a travesty. You spent the entire day destroying what it has taken me 43 years to build, and providing a forum for that.SEN. HEFLIN:
Well, Judge Thomas, you know, we have a responsibility, too. And as far as I’m involved, I had nothing to do with Anita Hill coming here and testifying. We’re trying to get to the bottom of this, and if she is lying, then I think you can help us prove that she was lying.JUDGE THOMAS:
Senator, I am incapable of proving the negative. It did not occur.SEN. HEFLIN:
Well, if it did not occur, I think you are in a position, certainly your ability to testify to in effect to try to eliminate it from people’s minds.JUDGE THOMAS:
Senator, I didn’t create it in people’s minds. This matter was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in a confidential way. It was then leaked last weekend to the media. I did not do that. And how many members of this committee would like to have the same scurrilous, uncorroborated allegations made about him, and then leaked to national newspapers, and then be drawn and dragged before a national forum of this nature to discuss those allegations that should have been resolved in a confidential way.SEN. HEFLIN:
Well I certainly appreciate your attitude toward leaks. I happen to serve on the Senate Ethics Committee, and it’s been a sieve.JUDGE THOMAS:
Well, but it didn’t leak on me. This leaked on me and it is drowning my life, my career and my integrity and you can’t give it back to me and this committee can’t give it back to me and this Senate can’t give it back to me. You have robbed me of something that can never be restored.SEN. (unknown):
I know exactly how you feel.SEN. HEFLIN:
Judge Thomas, one of the aspects of this is that she could be living in a fantasy world. I don’t know. We’re just trying to get to the bottom of all of these facts. But if you didn’t listen and didn’t see her testify, I think you put yourself in an unusual position. You in effect are defending yourself and basically some of us want to be fair to you, fair to her, but if you didn’t listen to what she said today, then that puts it somewhat in a more difficult task to find out what the actual facts are relative to this matter.JUDGE THOMAS:
The facts keep changing, Senator. When the FBI visited me, the statements to this committee and the questions were one thing. The FBI’s subsequent questions were another thing, and the statements today as I received summaries of them were another thing. It is not my fault that the facts changed. What I have said to you is categorical; that any allegations that I engaged in any conduct involving sexual activity, pornographic movies, attempted to date her, any allegations, I deny. It is not true. So, the facts can change, but my denial does not. Ms. Hill was treated in a way that all my special assistants were treated: cordial, professional, respectful.SEN. HEFLIN:
Judge, if you are on the bench and you approach a case where you appear to have a closed mind and that you are only right, doesn’t it raise issues of judicial temperament?JUDGE THOMAS:
Senator, Senator, there is a big difference between approaching a case objectively and watching yourself being lynched. There is no comparison whatsoever.
I just think the parallel conversation flow is interesting. Whether Ayn Rand changed Justice Thomas’ life completely around, or just had a marginally seasoning influence on the way he thinks, his concurring and disseting opinions are brilliant. They are absolute masterpieces. He is a credit to the Supreme Court, and anybody who chooses to preserve the Senate’s reputation as the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body” would do well to shield their eyes from what’s transcribed above, in fact, from the whole sorry episode.
However, any other bell-divers who would like to descend, like me, to the depths to which the sinking bauble is headed at breakneck speed but thus far has not yet reached, may want to look over the Thomas Hearing transcripts in their entirety.
I cannot begin to describe to those too young to have been paying attention to this at the time, the alarming level of apathy I had toward politics when these hearings started fourteen years ago. As our legislators and our media poked & prodded the Anita Hill scab into a putrid, infected boil in the coming days, I gradually developed an interest around this particular event. I made a point of listening more and more often; by the time the actual vote was held I was not only titillated, but sickened. I couldn’t believe what we had allowed our elected representatives to do to this country. I still needed Bill Clinton to come along to really show me how bad it was getting, but these hearings, on top of the House Bank Scandal, greatly impressed on me that change was needed. I was not alone. “The Year of the Woman,” 1992, could be more accurately termed “The Year of Throwing the Dirty Bastards Out.” House Bank in the lower chamber, and Thomas Hearings in the upper, undoubtedly were causative factors for this, and of course we all know by now that incumbents were no safer in the 1994 midterm elections than they were two years previous.
Our republic had become heavily diseased, and various techniques of improved mass communication were just beginning to show us what a bunch of weird old men we had put under the dome. To this day I’m convinced that the cancer is so bad that it can never be fully driven from the host, no matter what — we can only hope for some days a tiny bit less pessimistic than others, as a home-hospice patient with bone cancer can hope for a few days with a little less pain.
I want to be wrong. And who knows? Maybe the Hope Diamond will be stopped before it reaches the floor of the Atlantic, and the Roberts hearings will never get this bad. It should be noted that they’re headed in the “right” direction, though. Tomorrow, I’m sure, we will wake up to discover something even more hideous, mean-spirited and patently irrelevant had been done to keep John Roberts off the Supreme Court. The jewel is sinking, and sinking, and sinking…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.