Privy thoughts

It amused me today, for some reason, to recall that I know where to find a washroom at the fish market in Bergen, Norway. Oddly, I experienced almost as much pleasure in remembering that accomplishment as in the thought of being published (which just goes to show you there’s something very, very wrong with me).

Mark you, it’s not the greatest washroom you’ve ever used. For one thing, you have to pay to get into a stall. You pay an attendant, who—although I used the Men’s Room—was a woman, at least the last time I was there.

See, that’s what comes of Socialism. Verily I say unto you, if Pres. Obama (peace be upon him) and the Democrats have their way, soon all our washrooms will be pay toilets, and all the men’s rooms will have female attendants.

And it’ll do you no good staying home, because private washrooms will be outlawed. THIS WAY TO THE PEOPLE’S FACILITIES. YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK. PLEASE TAKE A NUMBER.

OK, I think I’ve taken this train of thought far enough down the track.

Criminal Intent

It’s one thing for an editor or columnist to call for censorship of bad or disfavored ideas by rounding up people who hold those ideas. It’s another thing for the attorney general to call it. I wonder if hate crime law is inacted, will it make attempted assault just as harshly punished as assault under some circumstances? Worse than that, the current bill apparently allows the federal prosecutors to try a person twice for a single act of qualifying hatred.

The US Commission on Civil Rights says the bill currently in the Senate “will do little good and a great deal of harm.” In a letter to several senators, the commissioners wrote:

“We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties,” stated the commissioners. They pointed out that the loophole to “double jeopardy” exists because the authors of the Bill of Rights “never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and federal offenses.”

Going the dissonance

Mowed the lawn tonight. The length was right, and it’ll probably rain tonight and tomorrow.

One thing about mowing lawn—it makes me feel really smart. Whatever my other failures and shortcomings, I am undoubtedly a real estate genius.

When I bought this house, the lot was small. I remember describing it to people as, “Tiny. I’m thinking of getting a push lawnmower.”

But the longer I mow the thing, the larger my property gets.



Our promotional people
have a couple internet radio interviews set up for me. On the evening of Thursday, June 25, I’m scheduled to be interviewed by David K. Ewen at Blogtalk Radio.

And on the morning of Tuesday, June 30, I’ll be interviewed by Stacy Harp at Active Christian Media.

I don’t believe it’s necessary to tune in to hear either one live. In fact, I’m not sure they’ll be broadcast live. Both can be accessed at your convenience after they’re recorded.

West Oversea is now searchable at Amazon.com (although it’s still cheaper to order it directly through my publisher).

It’s gratifying—and a little alarming—to see the book generating what they call “buzz” (as you’ve noticed if you’ve been following my posts lately). The strangest thing is that I’m getting high praise from a number of people whose opinions are impossible to dismiss. One or two endorsements from people I admire could be written off as charity, or the result of a traumatic head injury. But when they start adding up, the result is serious cognitive dissonance.

Update & correction: Apparently the David Ewen interview is now uncertain. It may happen as scheduled, or it may happen at a different date. I’ll keep you posted.

A Bitter Worldview

James Bowman writes about a book called, Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness: “In seeking some scientific sanction for proclaiming his case of jaundice a true and factual picture of the world, the professor has provided us with a good illustration of how bitterness generally is self-generated in a way that real illness can hardly be.”

Listening In Without Asking for Repetition

Loren Eaton points out a writing exercise suggested by N.D. Wilson, whose blog I’m going to add to the sidebar. “Go to a public place (restaurant, bus-stop, coffee-shop, etc.). Take a notebook. Sit somewhere that gives your ears full auditory range. Listen. Attempt to copy down whatever dialog drifts your way. . . .”

Loren’s real name, by the way, is Nerol Notae (the final letter of both names being silent). Yes, he’s that Nerol Notae! He cleverly disguised it by writing it backwards so he could blog in relative obscurity, but we have found him out. From now on, the famous Nerol Notae will not be able to hide his blog from his many off-Broadway fans, his Fifth Avenue fans, his Champs-Élysées fans, etc. The world had to know sometime, Nerol. Thanks for the fish.

The Ignorant Call for Censorship

The Wall Street Journal has a piece reacting to a call from U.S. News and World Report to crack down on hateful speakers who supposedly encourage murders like those of the abortionist, the security guard, and the soldier over the last several weeks.

“If [last week’s] Holocaust Museum slaying of security guard and national hero Stephen Tyrone Johns is not a clarion call for banning hate speech, I don’t know what is. . . .” writes Bonnie Erbe in U.S. News and World Report. In response, James Taranto says,

This is not Islamist Iran or communist Cuba or some tin-pot military dictatorship. Our government does not simply round people up. It cannot deprive people of their liberty without a legal basis to do so, and it has no authority to punish people merely for expressing political views, no matter how odious.

This is not even a close call: The expression of prejudice and hatred is protected by the First Amendment. In America, neo-Nazis have a constitutional right to hold a parade in a neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors (National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 1977). That’s about as hateful as you can get.

I surprised at emotional responses like Erbe’s, and I can only assume she doesn’t know the law or founding principles of our country. Of course, I’m not a legal scholar either, but what kind of philosophy leads one to advocate making hateful ideas a crime? A disjointed one, I’d think, one based in feeling, not truthful reason.

I like the way President Bush said it. Murder for any reason is hateful. There’s no need to specify punishment for some motivations over others.

Book Reviews, Creative Culture