Trick or treat, suckers!

To-day, on a balmy October evening in the year 1517, a certain set of ninety-five theses were nailed on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Saxony-Anhalt (in Germany, that is). This was an invitation to public debate regarding the touchy subject of indulgences issued by the Romish Church. This issue is even touchy to-day amongst some of the more fervent devotees of Catholicism. This was the beginning of a huge series of events that culminated in the Peace of Westphalia, the underlying document for the modern nation-state. It also eliminated the hopes of some in a unifying the quarrelsome European kingdoms into one continent-wide super-state (sound familiar?) called the Holy Roman Empire. Oddly enough, Javier Solana and Joschka Fisher, both major "Euro-Luvvies" (the former is the current EU Foreign Minister), have denounced the Westphalia system of sovereign nation-states as "obsolete" for a number of reasons, mostly because it represents a threat to politicians who yearn for a united European super-state.
What was the response from Rome? The Pope at the time, Leo X,, was too busy holding mock poetic triumphs involving his elephant "Hanno", hunting animals with the aid of a spy-glass, and tending to his anal fistula to deal with this new threat. After three years of diversions, he finally got around to excommunicating Luther on 3 January, 1521. Later that year, Leo died. His replacement, Adrian VI, was famous for his statement that the Pope was not always infallible in matters of faith (haeresim per suam determinationem aut Decretalem assurond. He readily admitted that the "problems" in Germany stemmed from the problems in the Roman Curia, and not the perceived lack of virility of Henry VIII. To set the record straight, "Bluff King Hal" had, presumably between drinks, at least four children who survived infancy, three of whom were legitimate (Elizabeth I, Bloody Mary, and Edward VI). He had six children by his first wife alone, but only one survived. He had three by Anne Boleyn, and one by Jane Seymour. There are at least six possible illegitimate children as well.
In any case, it's a monumental occasion to commemorate.

Self-Criticism, Volume II

Never being one to stray from self-criticism, I publish the latest results!

You are Revelation.


Which book of the Bible are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Not surprising, though I was half expecting to be Quoheleth from Ecclesiastes. See if any of this sounds familiar:
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
And to demonstrate that there is no new thing under the sun, Congress has overwhelmingly rejected the Coburn Amendment. This would have redirected the money going to Ketchikan, Alaska's famous "bridge to nowhere" to reconstruction projects in New Orleans. It was shot down 85-12. This demonstrates that the "stupid party" has completely lost touch with its electorate. Many commentators are thinking about selecting a democrat president next election so that the congress would brake spending. Of course, I think this plan is patent nonsense- Congress itself is the problem, and if Republicans mean "small government" then I wonder what the Dems have planned. The radical left is providing most of the money for the party, so if they seize power in 2006 (which looks exceedingly likely), we can look forward to more of the same. Will anyone stand up against the centralisation of power? It seems an unstoppable trend around the world- everywhere from the United Kingdom to China. It's truly a sad time for libertarians.
"If you don't change with the times, you become an irrelevant joke."
Toto's Steve Porcaro, to Michael McDonald
The pleasant half of this update comes in the form of Yacht Rock. It's from the same people who developed "Laser Fart," and it chronicles the adventures of smooth rock superstars such as Kenny Loggins, Michael McDonald, and the Doobie Brothers. It's amusingly over-dramatic. There are four episodes, and I recommend them wholeheartedly, even if you know nothing about this odd period of history (as I do).

You're either with us or against us!

It seems that the American "global village idiot" has lately become a trend-setter for even the most progressive elements of the world. To demonstrate, one must hearken back to the heady days before the Iraq war, to the mythical time when Saddam Hussein peacefully governed Iraq with a general consensus. One must recall the speech of one George W. Bush, who famously said that, in the "War on Terror," one can be either "with us or against us." This policy statement met with much criticism from the moral voice of society, who agreed that it would "offend allies." Despite the obvious criticism that an "ally" is an entity that has "allied" itself with another entity (and is thus "with" its ally), this opinion transformed into a general consensus amongst the Fourth Estate (i.e. "Media" as they presently style themselves). It also became a justification for the actions of France, Germany, Russia, China, and company in the subsequent years. If only "dubya" had been more nurturing to Vlad Putin (who is truly a sensitive soul), things would have undoubtedly turned out differently.
However, yesterday's anathema is to-morrow's certainty! The eminent Dr. Richard North at EU Referendum has kindly pointed out an interesting article in The Observer. Its author, noted European Union enthusiast Will Hutton, describes at length many of the problems facing the Union at this time. His final analysis follows.

"In the end it is simple. You either think that, despite its failings, the EU is a force for good - or you don't. And if you are on its side, you have fight for it. Beset by critics and internal division, without a sense of purpose and momentum the EU will rot and implode. Nobody should underestimate the risk - and how it would leave us all the poorer."
Again leaving aside the obvious and snarky comment that leaving the EU and its veritable cornucopia of regulation (and, by leaving the Euro-zone, gaining the ability to set interest rates again) would instantly improve the economy, this is pretty much the same thing "dubya" said. Political necessity is the peer-pressure of the international scene. It often forces nations into the equivalent of strutting about the international stage in polyester bell-bottoms. Perhaps it's time we heeded the wise men of history, who counsel that conscience must replace necessity. It certainly will spare the family of nations many embarrassing memories.

Also, it has come to my notice that the Air Force of the Republic is testing transparent armour that uses aluminum oxynitride. If my memory serves me correctly, its inventor should be an ingenious Scottish engineer. It certainly seems that the British Army could make use of it over in Iraq.

England Expects that Every Man will do his Duty

Exactly two centuries ago to-day, a Royal Navy fleet of some twenty-six ships of the first, second, and third rate under the command of Admiral Horatio, Lord Nelson defeated the much larger French/Spanish combined fleet under Admiral de Villeneuve off the cost of Cadiz, Spain. Attacking from a tactically disadvantageous position, Nelson's squadrons penetrated the enemy fleet in two columns. They were unable to bring their guns to bear for much of the engagement, but superior RN gunnery managed to turn the battle decisively. Nelson was wounded on board his flagship, HMS Victory, after he was singled out by a French sniper on board le Redoubtable who saw his fanciful uniform. Taken below, where he died several hours later after learning of his great victory, uttering "Thank God I have done my duty." His body was preserved in a keg of brandy and shipped back to England. A grateful nation buried its greatest hero under St. Paul's cathedral in London, where he lies to-day (near the other great national hero, the Duke of Wellington). HMS Victory is also still around, and I had the good fortune to visit her in Portsmouth several years ago. Being a first-rate ship of the line, it had over one hundred guns. It is an impressive sight, and its masts still rise above the most modern ships of the Royal Navy.
The main benefit of Nelson's victory was that it forestalled Bonaparte's plans to invade England permanently. Admiral de Villeneuve lost control of the sea to the British, who held onto it until the end of the Second World War (and the Labour Government of Clement Attlee). However, it seems that the main benefits of his labour have been forfeited by Eurocrats. At the recent International Fleet Review in honour of the battle, nations from around the world sent their ships to pay homage to the men who fought there. The US Navy intended to send a Nimitz-class carrier, the largest warship in the world to-day, as a gesture honouring the importance of one of our principal allies. However, the French (who lost the original battle and killed Lord Nelson) became furious, as the US Carrier would overshadow their contribution, France's home-grown CVN Charles de Gaulle. Instead, the US sent the Saipan, a Landing Ship of the Tarawa class. Does anyone think that this is ridiculous? It's what happens when a nation whose current Prime Minister compared Bonaparte's defeat at Waterloo to the Crucifixion of Christ is forced to re-live its defeats. I wouldn't be surprised at all if by 18 June 2015 (the two hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo) the French would try to re-write it? Already, in French Prime Minister de Villepin's book Les cent jours or The One Hundred Days he claims that the defeat of the French at Waterloo had the "glint of Victory." Perhaps he might endeavour to tell Bonaparte about that, considering l'empereur des Français was sent packing all the way back to France from Belgium and promptly de-throned when he arrived in Paris. One might also tell Mssr. de Villepin that Napoleon Bonaparte was born Napoleone di Bounaparte. Being a Corsican, he was more an Italian than a Frenchman. Alas, I'm not one to provoke a hissy-fit over a war that's been done for nearly two centuries.

Important Dates and German Cabinet Antics

Yester-day was the nineteenth of October. On this date in 1781, the Independence of the American Republic was recognised when Lieutenant-General Charles, Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown to General George Washington, Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Forces of the United States and France. He first attempted to surrender to the commander of allied French forces, General Comte de Rochambeau, through his second in command O'Hara. However, le Comte directed Cornwallis to surrender to Washington, who was the overall commander. Eventually, Cornwallis surrendered to General Benjamin Lincoln, Washington's second-in-command. The articles of capitulation, though primarily concerned with disposition of prisoners, contained a de facto recognition of the young Republic. This was formalised two years later on 3 September 1783 in Article I of the Second Treaty of Paris.
In Germany, the CDU has finally seen fit to name its six cabinet ministers. They now control the key ministries of Defence and Economics. However, the Economics minister, Edmund Stoiber, leaves much to be desired. He's socially conservative, but he's more akin to Schroeder's outgoing SPD in the realm of economics. Don't expect Germany to improve its economic situation anytime soon. Read more about him and the other CDU ministers at David's Medienkritik. He also has a list and descriptions of the eight SPD ministers. Signs aren't very encouraging from that side of the isle either. The SPD Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is a Scroeder ally. David thinks that he'll continue the anti-American policy of the German Government.
When can we get Prussia back?

Studmobile, or death car?

I see that my esteemed colleague Professor Massa has decided to send the venerable Studmobile to the auction block. Though it is sad to see the Studmobile end its service to the Society, it must be commended for the sterling work it did. It endured innumerable shuttle-runs to Cabela's, Hardee's, and other exotic locales.
This also brings to the fore the problem of a replacement. How does one replace a vehicle so refined as the Studmobile? Thus far, only two potential candidates have surfaced. I shall present each here.
First on the list is a fine example of German engineering that will undoubtedly appeal to the Prussian side of Herr Professor. It is the one and only Panzerkampfwagen V "Panzer Tank"! It was constructed by Daimler-Benz in Germany, but had a rather limited production run. Regardless, it's virtually indestructible and weighs several tons (about fifty, to be more precise!), much like the venerable studmobile. It also has a 75mm main gun that makes clearing up traffic or wiping out the "Judeo-Bolshevik" Russian menace a snap!
Those put off by the poor mileage of the Panzer (about 0,65 miles per gallon) can instead choose a classic of English workmanship. I speak, of course, of a modern update to an old standard, the modern death car. It's a bit smaller, but has a great deal of ground clearance and extra space in the back for all those battlefield casualties the Belgians seem intent on inflicting. It's also a great way to attract the attention of the ladies, and demonstrates your "'til death do us part" commitment (though it doesn't specify when death parts you, or how, for those afraid of commitment). Another advantage is that nobody will look at the fashionable driver strangely when he transports corpses in the substantial rear compartment.
It is my sincere hope that these choices will aid the discriminating driver in his selection of vehicle.

Good-bye, Berlusconi!

My friend Matthia (an I-talian by birth) is due to become a citizen of our Republic at about eleven this morning, so I'll keep the update short. First, congratulations are in order to him. He'll be a welcome addition to our national polity.
Congratulations are also in order to CDU leader Angie Merkel, the first woman Bundeskanzler. The cursed Hun has finally seen fit to select a government. Interestingly enough, the losing party (Schroeder's SPD) is getting eight cabinet positions (out of fourteen). In any case, Schroeder is out, and he went out with a bang, insulting "Anglo-Saxon" nations (isn't Saxony a region in Germany?) in General and the United States in particular as a "disaster." That's an amusing comment to hear from Gerhard "Twelve Percent Structural Unemployment" Schroeder, but (as Shakespeare said of Henry VIII) these things are true.
Finally, Mr. Free Market notices that Scotland is attempting to ban air-guns due to the tragic death of a two year old child. This seems an odd choice of prosecution, considering how Scotland has a very high murder rate from very real guns (also banned).
Finally, nine hundred and thirty-nine years ago to-day Duke William of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England fought a decisive battle north of Hastings, England. King Harold was killed during the battle, and William became King William I of England (better known as William the Conqueror). William, in addition to building the White Tower (better though incorrectly known as the Tower of London), also built a large abbey on the site of the battle. Though now ruined (mostly by the efforts of Henry VIII), it still is an imposing sight. The altar of the chapel was placed on the exact spot where King Harold fell. My father tells me that there is a good chance that my ancestors fought in the battle. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Le moteur économique français a calé (encore)

To-day's update again concerns the multi-fold misadventures our moral betters in Europe. First, for those of you wondering, the recent German election (18 September) is still dragging on. A key vote in the city of Dresden again gave a (marginal) victory to Angie Merkel's CDU/CSU party. However, the SPD is only four votes behind in the Bundestag, and are still demanding to lead the governing coalition. Talks are still dragging on, and it appears that a "grand coalition" will be formed so that productivity will cease altogether.
Meantime, in the other part of the European Union's "Engine", French Workers have called a massive general strike for reasons that are not entirely clear. Though this is hardly news (there are massive strikes in France every year), what's interesting about this one is that the Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin (previously famous for crying on the Battlefield of Waterloo), is about as far-left as one can get outside the Communist party. Even de Villepin knows that the current French economic structure is untenable and bound to collapse, and that reforms are necessary. We'll see whether France sinks or swims.
Next, in the progressive Scandinavian lands, a disabled man in Denmark has demanded that the state to reimburse him for his visits to local prostitutes. It'll be interesting to see whether this will spur the Danes to consider the crazy "Anglo-Saxon" (as the French call it) idea of "personal responsibility."
Finally, the news from merry Albion grows increasingly bleak. In the government corrections bureaucracy, employees have been banned from wearing the flag of St. George, which is England's national flag, because it's used as a symbol by nationalists. The BBC ran a poll discussing "changing" the national flag to make it less offensive. To add insult to injury, Dudley Borough Council has banned likenesses of pigs to appease the vocal Muslim minority population. Oddly enough, Muslims are only banned from eating pork, not reading it (or, in the case of our country, seeing it built on their campus).
It seems to me that ridiculousness in government advances in stages. First, a ridiculous proposal is disguised as "sensible" and "necessary." Its critics are silenced with terms like "we're just banning smoking in restaurants, which is in the public interest because they are public places. It's not like we're banning everywhere." That accomplished, a few years pass by to allow the lawsuits to settle, and then an ambitious councillor puts for the idea to "ban smoking in all public places." Though far-reaching, he notes the success of the previous ban as an example, and silences critics with "we're targeting only one, very specific behaviour that is demonstrably deadly to all. It's not as if we're banning fast food because it's fattening." Another ban passes, and a few years later the same health-types begin examining the idea of banning "trans fats" in food. Thus, the government becomes so ridiculous that it goes beyond parody and its citizens are solemnly convinced of the necessity of extreme measures against a bogeyman that never truly threatened their safety.

Self-Criticism and a Personal Note

Here's more progressive self-criticism. It was in the "word choice test" at the "OKCupid" people's self-critical biography site. I took it on a lark, and obtained the following result-

English Genius
You scored 100% Beginner, 100% Intermediate, 100% Advanced, and 86% Expert!
You did so extremely well, even I can't find a word to describe your excellence! You have the uncommon intelligence necessary to understand things that most people don't. You have an extensive vocabulary, and you're not afraid to use it properly! Way to go!

Thank you so much for taking my test. I hope you enjoyed it!
Translation: Nerd!

It's about that time when people look at graduate school. I'm looking at two presently, with strong parental insistence on a third (cheaper) university. Where it will lead me, no one can say.

The Crisis of Liberalism

It fell out that I had a few spare moments to-day, and so I found myself reminiscing about the early-summer endeavours of our Society. Specifically, we held a symposium concerning the question of modernity. We concerned ourselves with its origins and problems. Though recent posting is certainly not up to the level it once was, I think taking another "cheap shot" at modernity. I invite my fellows to contribute their thoughts.
Dr. Phillips is a professor of Political Science at my University. Though one would scarcely know it from external appearance, Dr. Phillips has an exceedingly rare combination of traits. First, he has an inquisitive and critical nature, native to the philosopher. Second, he can wield effectively the mystery of power, even in such slight quantities as are given to university professors. He uses the widespread fear of him present in each freshman class to ensure that people actually do read Plato's Republic. Thus, though he can use power as a means to reach an end, the end he seeks is noble rather than selfish.
Dr. Phillips has often spoken of a "crisis of liberalism." He asked of his ten o'clock in the mourning class (rhetorically, it seems) a startling question- why has liberalism become so collectivist? How can a philosophy rooted in individual freedom turn into a collectivist monstrosity? The turn-about from Jeffersonian Liberalism to Clintonian "third-way" nonsense is so complete, it begs a citation from Dante.
Were he as fair once, as he now is foul,
And lifted up his brow against his Maker,
Well may proceed from him all tribulation.
I would say that the modern failure of liberalism lies in its radical secularisation and claims on scientific certitude. Liberalism held that self-interest could replace human spiritual dignity. This was an untenable proposition, and it was replaced by the vastly more untenable proposition that people were mere "economic agents," concerned only with the consumption of goods. From this determinism we get the roots of modern "liberalism"- Marx's "scientific socialism," Skinner's Behaviourism, Maslow's material-heavy "hierarchy of needs," Keynesian economics, and Erlich's Malthusian "Population Bomb," where people are too stupid to conduct their own affairs. Due it its authoritarian bent, this version is longer-lived and has developed deeper roots than the previous incarnation. It's a disastrous direction for our future, but no large party has proposed any other course. It's either the fast-track or slow-track to scientific Utopia*.

Just as the French word for shower needs a footnote translation (spoiler: it's "Douche"), in the Greek "Utopia" means "nowhere"