Courtesy of grammarly.com/grammar-check and just in time for Father's Day, we have this test of grammar acumen. Check your skills and be sure to share the results on social media!
The blog is celebrating an anniversary today. Ten years ago a guy named Jorn Barger coined the term "weblog" to describe his website Robot Wisdom. It was shortened to "blog" two years later by someobody else.
Back then only about 23 websites were properly considered blogs. These days, whether you write them or read them, blogs are a pretty common pursuit.
Estimates are that 120,000 new ones are created everyday. No word, though, on how many are actually read.
Nine years and 11 months ago today, I posted my first blog entry, which said, in part:
It took a while, but I've been sucked into the world of bloggers.In the near-decade since then, I have accomplished all that and more.
I have two primary purposes in publishing this blog: (1) to comment on current affairs and cultural events, including theatre, music, movies, and books and (2) to archive some of my old writings on what-were-then-current affairs and cultural events (you know the rest).
While we're doing the math, it's noteworthy that -- by coincidence, not design -- this is my 1,500th blog post on this site.More than 30 years ago, I was involved in the preparation of an anthology called The Apocalyptic Premise, which was edited by Ernest W. Lefever and E. Stephen Hunt and published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The book gathered 31 essays about the then-current nuclear arms debate.
In an introduction, Lefever and Hunt define what they mean by the anthology's intriguing title, noting that, in public policy debates, "some ideas obscure desirable ends and confuse the means for reaching them." They go on to say that
In the context of the early 1980s, apocalypticism -- if I might coin a word (or not) -- dealt almost exclusively with fears of an imminently (immanently?) impending nuclear holocaust. (See, for instance, my commentary on the ABC-TV movie, The Day After, which was broadcast the same year as The Apocalyptic Premise was published.)One such influential idea is "the apocalyptic premise," which has always flourished in times of trouble and uncertainty. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament have vivid apocalyptic passages portraying how the world will end for both the righteous and the unrighteous....
But in current secular usage, an apocalyptic event is one that spells doom for a nation, a civilization, or the human race itself... In the nuclear era some secular apocalyptic prophets proclaim that the world will be destroyed by fire and brimstone unless their particular prescriptions for avoiding catastrophe are adopted.
This may seem odd, but a surprisingly large chunk of the Western World believed we wouldn’t get to see 2013, purely because that’s what the Mayans thought. Most of these people never did anything else that Mayans did — never ate human flesh, for example, or at least never offered to pay for it. So why did they rush to embrace that specific bit of Mayan faith? Eschatology proves to be a human urge, just like hunger, sleep or love. We need to know that there’s at least a hint of a chance that the world is in danger, perhaps because it is too hard to care for anything that isn’t, or because it is easier to believe in a disaster that is inflicted on the planet from above than to admit to the one we cause daily. Secular media is fueled by eschatology — the Y2K bug, meteor scares, terrorist threats — with Hollywood blockbusters competing for the chance to feed it each summer. Who by fire? By water? By zombies?Ben Ari went on to note that a prominent 18th-19th century rabbi prophesied that the end of the world would come in the Hebrew calendar's year 5775, which begins in September 2014.
If there is one thing in common among all the conflicting beliefs in the world, it is the belief that the world will come to an end. Hindus count down to the completion of Kali Yuga; Muslims await the arrival of Mahdi; Christians fear the Day of Wrath. Jewish participation in “hisuvei kitzim” — “end calculations” — is as harshly forbidden as it is widely practiced. Every great rabbi has an end date: The Vilna Gaon, Rashi, Maimonides. In 1927, Rabbi Avraham Yalin published a book in which he claimed that Zionism would be the end of the world and that it would reach its goal in 1948. He died in 1934 and never got to see which part came true. The Gemara itself claims that the world will get to be only 6,000 (Jewish) years old. In Gregorian Calendar time, this means 2,240.
This is a very dangerous apocalyptic symptom, and we must do everything in our powers to ensure that sin is never sanctioned in Russia by state law, because that would mean that the nation has embarked on a path of self-destruction.”To take a current example that expresses our contemporary apocalyptic premise in a single word, Lou Dobbs, a popular and sometimes controversial TV host on Fox News, has written a new book published this week and called Upheaval, in which he argues that
Amidst this climate of dread and apprehension, even a possible shortage of Velveeta processed cheese within weeks of Super Bowl Sunday is being called a "cheesepocalypse," either mocking or reflecting the eschatological mood of the country.the chief threats to the stability of our social order and economic well-being, indeed the very essence of our American way of life, go well beyond leagues of nation-states and ideologues who mean us harm. The greatest threat of upheaval is a combination of those nation-states, ideological extremists, religious zealots, and the confluence of internal forces that are weakening our notion of who we are, diminishing our confidence in the American dream itself, and leaving many of our citizens and many of our leaders questioning American exceptionalism, our way of life, and our relationship to one another and to the world itself. The very idea of America is under great stress, from within and without. The prospect of a great upheaval rises with each passing day that we decline to examine the consequences of the choices we are making as a people and as a nation. And these forces are allied, not in conspiracy, but in their contemporaneous array against us, our ideals, our values, and our nation's future.
Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner picked up the story first in his Dec. 26 Washington Secrets column titled, "Be prepared: Wall Street advisor recommends guns, ammo for protection in collapse."After suggesting that the viral nature of his otherwise non-descript blog post may reveal something about the changing mood of the country and a reversal of traditional left/right political roles, Marotta said the solution to this apocalyptic thinking may simply be to reduce the size and scope of government. This, he asserts, will have a calming effect on political tempers:
Three parts of the headline are misleading.
I am not a Wall Street advisor; I am in Charlottesville. My only connection to Wall Street is having my photo taken at the Bull and eating at the Deli. The article does mildly clarify, describing me as a "Wall Street expert" — true if that means investment advisor. However, future articles referencing Bedard's article were misled by this description.
Furthermore, I did not exactly recommend guns and ammo. I suggested that two-dozen items on the list are more important. This is mentioned in the article when Bedard quotes me as saying, "Firearms are the last item on the list, but they are on the list."
I did not suggest there would be a collapse. I had written in the first of the series, "There is the possibility of a precipitous decline, although a long and drawn out malaise is much more likely."
Bedard was accurate in stating, "Marotta said that many clients fear an end-of-the-world scenario. He doesn't agree with that outcome, but does with much of what has people worried."
The very popular Drudge Report picked up the story next and featured it above its banner: "Wall Street advisor recommend guns, ammo for protection in collapse." The original Washington Examiner article was also copied on multiple sites without comment. Over three days, we had a record 30,946 unique visitors to our two sites.
Moving in a more libertarian direction blends the concerns of the right and the left on the abuses of governmental involvement in everything from marriage to spying. A smaller government could focus on what we all agree is its rightful purpose.
 |
| Journal of Civil Defense - April 1981 |
After reviewing my post on Monday about gay Boy Scouts, it occurred to me that it may be difficult for people to find my August 1999 article from the Wall Street Journal about the BSA's anti-gay membership policies then in place.
IN A 30,000-PLUS-WORD DECISION, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the Boy Scouts may not exclude gay members from participation in the organization. Because the New Jersey court's ruling conflicts with others (including one made in March 1998 by the California Supreme Court), this issue almost certainly will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. For this reason, the New Jersey decision deserves scrutiny as well as criticism.
Three points deserve comment. First, this decision erodes freedom of association. Second, it further expands the definition of "public" at the expense of what is "private." And third, while the Court's written opinion offers a strong argument for why the Boy Scouts should voluntarily change their policy, it fails to demonstrate why the government should force them to do so.
One of the things I learned about as a Boy Scout in the early 1970s was the importance of freedom, as embodied in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Boy Scouts asserted that, were the organization forced to change its membership (and hiring) criteria, its First Amendment rights to free speech, religious liberty, and association would be violated. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled, incredibly, that "application of the [state's] Law Against Discrimination to Boy Scouts of America does not infringe on its First Amendment rights." Of course it infringes on those rights -- the question is whether such infringement is justified. The Garden State's Supreme Court argues that it is, and that the state's non-discrimination law trumps the First Amendment.
Freedom of association is one of our most precious rights. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruling threatens all of us who want to set standards for our organizations -- including gay men and lesbians.
The court's decision -- now limited to New Jersey, but with foreseeable national ramifications --undermines the right of gay men and lesbians to seek and maintain "queer-safe space" such as social clubs, fraternities and sororities, and social service organizations like Washington, D.C.'s Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL). If the Boy Scouts are not free to set their own membership standards -- however "vague" they might be (a key point in the New Jersey court's criticism) -- shouldn't these gay and lesbian organizations also lose their freedom to do so? Very few gay teenagers are likely to attend Saturday afternoon rap groups to discuss personal problems with their peers if they know that they might be forced to share this private space with heterosexual teens as well.
Diluting freedom of association makes it harder to combat government-based anti-gay discrimination. Respect for freedom of association, on the other hand, is the linchpin in persuading the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse its 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, which gave state governments the authority to regulate our most intimate associations, sexual relationships. At the same time, the right to associate with whom we wish, when we wish, where we wish, will be an important factor in overturning the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and various state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.
My colleague, Odell Huff, suggests that the New Jersey court's expansive definition of "public" will have detrimental effects on all citizens. "We should be protecting the private against the intrusion of the 'public,'" said Huff, vice president of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL). He adds: "Of course, we should be wary of any organization, which relies heavily on taxpayers' money to subsidize its activities, asserting a right to discriminate. But the Boy Scouts' reliance on government varies widely from place to place, and in most cases it provides predominantly 'private' space." Moreover, if taxpayers object to the Boy Scouts' use of their money in a "discriminatory" manner, the better course would be to withdraw their money, rather than to circumscribe the Scouts' freedoms of association, expression, and religion.
British scholar Nigel Ashford, writing in the Independent Gay Forum, argues a similar point, noting that Britain and the United States both face the same problem. "The distinction between private and state (usually expressed as 'public') is extremely important in a free society. Unfortunately the definition of the private has become narrowed to include only the person's home, and sometimes not even that. The distinction between private and public should be ownership, not who goes there. 'Public' should mean government owned, not open to the public, as in a bar or club." Ashford goes on to say that "a wide definition of private and a narrow definition of public (state) is the best protection for gays. The alternative is that government can legislate and interfere in areas open to the public," such as bars that cater to a gay clientele, erotic video stores, or even social clubs that meet in private homes. He concludes: "Those who control the power of the state will use it for their own purposes and preferences." A minimization of the private that expands the "public" hurts all of us, gay or straight.
That said, one should not conclude that the Boy Scouts' policy of excluding gay boys and men from their ranks deserves our approval. It does not. The New Jersey Supreme Court documents quite extensively how the Scouts' policy is contradictory and may, in fact, be harmful to the organization itself, as well as to the young men it aims to serve. The policy is archaic and bigoted and should be changed.
Still, a self-contradictory and wrong-headed policy does not require (nor deserve) the action of the state to correct it. Many commentators have noted that the Girl Scouts have chosen to practice non-discrimination in regard to sexual orientation. Lesbians are free to participate in Girl Scout programs. Yet no government action compelled this change in policy. The Girl Scouts' leadership acted on its own.
That is why we should encourage the efforts of those individuals and groups, such as gay former Scouts, who are trying to persuade the BSA to change its membership requirements voluntarily. Their attempts at moral suasion deserve commendation and support.
While on the surface it may appear that gay citizens have won something at the New Jersey Supreme Court, since the rights of all Americans are threatened, gay people have the most to lose.
 |
| Robert Sarvis in Charlottesville |
In July, the Center for Public Integrity reported on the formation of a new, libertarian political action committee that aims to support libertarian (and Libertarian) candidates around the country:The only major difference in the text that I reported from what ended up in the TV commercial is that it no longer lists Brad Smith as treasurer in the disclaimer. Instead, it somewhat mysteriously features a photograph of Joey Coon on top of the disclaimer, without naming him.
A super PAC quietly formed this spring by a prominent libertarian has rushed to a quick fundraising start thanks to a small network of wealthy, like-minded donors.
Purple PAC, a super PAC led by former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith and Cato Institute founder Ed Crane, raised $575,000 from the time the group launched in early May through the end of June, new FEC filings show....
Smith, who currently serves as the chairman of the anti-campaign finance regulation group Center for Competitive Politics, said Purple PAC plans to make independent expenditures promoting “freedom-oriented” candidates who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate.
These are viewpoints Smith says a large number of voters hold, although they have little influence in Washington.
“Swing voters don’t feel that either of the major parties is representing them,” Smith said, adding the group intends to focus much of its resources on battleground states, as its name suggests.
Now Virginia Politics on Demand has learned that Purple PAC is independently planning to purchase air time on radio (and perhaps television) in support of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis, the nominee of the Libertarian Party.
The proposed script of the ad reads in part:
Virginia, we have a rational choice for Governor.
Why choose between an ethically challenged, socially intolerant conservative and an ethically challenged, big government liberal?
Robert Sarvis, entrepreneur, libertarian.
Social tolerance and lower taxes: Virginia's future.
Send a message on November 5 and vote Sarvis for Governor.
(Paid for by the Purple PAC, Brad Smith, Treasurer.)
The Purple PAC's address of record is in Falls Church, Virginia, so it should come as no surprise that its first major expenditure should come on behalf of a candidate in the Commonwealth.
VPOD reached out to the Sarvis campaign, which had no knowledge of the potential Purple PAC ad buy.
"Both the Republican and Democratic candidates are right about each other," said Ed Crane, President of the Purple PAC. "Ken Cuccinelli is a socially intolerant, hard-right conservative with little respect for civil liberties. Terry McAuliffe is a big government liberal with little respect for economic liberties. Both have been engulfed in scandal. Fortunately, Robert Sarvis offers an alternative, an agenda grounded in free markets and social tolerance."The news release notes that the commercial can be seen on Vimeo at https://vimeo.com/77629652. It has not yet shown up on YouTube -- where, I'll assert, more people would see it than they would on Vimeo.
He added that Virginia voters need to send a message to both political parties. "Pollster John Zogby has found that 59 percent of voters surveyed answered 'yes' to the question 'Would you define yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?'" said Crane. "It's time that the two major parties made room for those voters - a majority of the electorate - or risk losing them altogether."
 | |
| Blog Action Day 2013 |
 |
| Scott Rasmussen |
Rasmussen has also noted a change in attitudes over the past twenty years since he began doing public opinion surveys, when issues like gay marriage were not even being discussed.Rasmussen's post-dinner speech covered a wide range of issues. It's best to let it speak for itself:
Beginning with a caveat that he did not “want to overstate this in a political sense,” he pointed out that “the biggest change is that, as a younger generation comes along,” there are more apparent “libertarianish attitudes.”
What this means, Rasmussen explained, is that “people believe they have the right to make decisions for their own lives and they’re very comfortable with that. They get pretty offended when somebody tries to tell them they can’t do something.”
That attitude, he said, “would apply to something like same-sex marriage or to a whole range of other cultural and social issues coming up.”
 |
| Jonah Goldberg and S.E. Cupp |
As noted in my last post, this past weekend I was in Las Vegas for the fifth annual RightOnline conference sponsored by Americans for Prosperity. That post featured videos of speeches by Sarah Palin and Nevada Congressman Joe Heck.
My handy digital video camera also recorded several other notable speakers, including two syndicated talk-radio hosts.
Lars Larson is based in Portland, Oregon, but his show is heard here in Charlottesville on WCHV-AM from 7:00 to 10:00 o'clock each evening. According to Talkers magazine, his show is heard by a weekly audience of more than 1.5 million listeners and it is the 11th most popular talk-radio show in the country (tied with Dennis Prager).
Larson spoke briefly at lunchtime on Saturday, June 16, and later joined a panel discussion with Jonah Goldberg and S.E. Cupp (see future post for that video).
 |
| Sarah Palin at RightOnline |
The next afternoon, because the conference was occurring in Las Vegas, the local Member of Congress -- U.S. Representative Joe Heck, a physician and Iraq War veteran -- addressed the lunchtime crowd. Congressman Heck spoke about the use of social media by his colleagues (he mentioned the Republican New Media Caucus, which is co-chaired by First District Virginia Representative Rob Wittman).
Watch this blog for more video from RightOnline 2012.
Much of my effort in on-line reporting during 2011 has been devoted to regular contributions of articles to Examiner.com as the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner.
Last week, I decided to investigate the top ten most popular stories of 2011, based upon the preferences of the readers of the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, using statistics made available through Google Analytics. No real patterns emerged. Several of the favorites were about Virginia politics, others were interviews with national celebrities; the number one story was about a movie. All of them were published during the calendar year 2011 and none were carryovers from 2010.
Surprisingly, two articles that used "porn" in the headline did not break the top ten: "Library of Congress collects pornographic films, violent video games" (published November 4) and "Porn king Larry Flynt defends free speech in Charlottesville" (published November 6).
Apparently adult content no longer has the cachet on the Internet that it once had. Not so long ago, using words like "porn," "erotica," "panties," or "scrotum" would be a surefire path to search engine optimization (SEO). Paraphrasing a Supreme Court decision and replacing "penumbra" with "aureola" was pure traffic-enhancing gold. But, it seems, no more.
For reasons of space, I ended up publishing three "Year in Review" articles on Examiner.com, dividing the top ten into groups of three, four, and three.
What follows is just the list of the ten most popular Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner articles of 2011. To see the annotations, please visit the original year in review pieces published on December 16, December 17, and December 18.
#10 - NEH chairman Jim Leach talks about ‘civility’ in CharlottesvilleNext year will bring new topics, new stories, new personalities and -- eventually -- a new year in review article.
[Published March 17, 2011]
#9 - Disappointment as Va. House subcommittee votes to keep pot possession a crime
[Published January 17, 2011]
#8 - Va. Gov. Bob McDonnell says GOP stands for ‘equal opportunity for all’
[Published October 26, 2011]
#7 - Libertarian writers Welch and Gillespie unveil the ‘Declaration of Independents’
[Published July 19, 2011]
#6 - Virginia’s school supplies ‘tax-free holiday’ more complicated than necessary
[Published August 4, 2011]
#5 - Attorneys Ted Olson, David Boies discuss Proposition 8 and gay marriage at Cato
[Published May 18, 2011]
#4 - Charlottesville write-ins reveal voters’ allegiance, impishness
[Published November 9, 2011]
#3 - Libertarian reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces
[Published May 2, 2011]
#2 - Gary Johnson wins RLC straw poll, places third in CPAC poll
[Published February 13, 2011]
Drum roll, please...
#1 - 'Atlas Shrugged' movie: Audience reactions mixed, box office returns respectable
[Published April 17, 2011]
