Shooting Back

Dee at Conservatism With Heart emailed me this link to the book Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self Defense by South African author Charl van Wyk. I quote from the blurb:

What would you do if armed terrorists broke into your church and starting attacking your friends with automatic weapons in the middle of a worship service?

Would you be prepared to defend yourself and other innocents?

Would you be justified in doing so?

Is it time for Americans to consider such once-unthinkable possibilities?

There is one man in the world who can address these questions with first-hand experience.

His name is Charl van Wyck – a South African who was faced with just such a shocking scenario.

[...]

"Grenades were exploding in flashes of light. Pews shattered under the blasts, sending splinters flying through the air," he recalls of the July 25, 1993, St. James Church Massacre. "An automatic assault rifle was being fired and was fast ripping the pews -- and whoever, whatever was in its trajectory -- to pieces. We were being attacked!"

But van Wyk was not defenseless that day. Had he been unarmed like the other congregants, the slaughter would have been much worse.

"Instinctively, I knelt down behind the bench in front of me and pulled out my .38 special snub-nosed revolver, which I always carried with me," he writes in "Shooting Back," a book being published for the first time in America next month by WND Books. "I would have felt undressed without it. Many people could not understand why I would carry a firearm into a church service, but I argued that this was a particularly dangerous time in South Africa."

During that Sunday evening service, the terrorists, wielding AK-47s and grenades, killed 11 and wounded 58. But the fact that one man – van Wyk – fired back, wounding one of the attackers and driving the others away.

[...]

“As Van Wyk’s experience illustrates, no place is totally safe — not even a church," explains Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who wrote the foreword to the book. "The notion that declaring an area to be gun-free, will keep criminals from maliciously using guns is ludicrous. Any law that makes self-defense illegal or impractical is an illegitimate law, because such a law ultimately subjects people to the criminal element. I hope that Charl van Wyk’s book will help turn the tide. South Africans – and people everywhere – need to refuse to support any laws that leave them defenseless against murderers, robbers, rapists and arsonists."

The St. James Church Massacre took place in Cape Town, South Africa on July 25th, 1993. It was perpetrated by the Azanian People's Liberation Army which is the "militant" (read terrorist) arm of the Pan-Africanist Congress. This is the group that has the motto "One (white) settler; one bullet." During the period 1990 through 1994, it began to target civilians in spite of the fact that Mandela had been freed and there were negotiations to hand the government over to black South Africans.

It was fortunate that Charl van Wyk was carrying a gun that day but nowadays he is no longer legally allowed to do so thanks to the enlightened rule of the puppet government of the African National Congress and their socialist multi-culti PC-nanny puppet-masters in Britain.

"Born Again Redneck Bourgeois."

Yep, another name change for my blog.

I first explained why I picked "Born Again Redneck" thus:

...about 6 years ago I met a guy on the internet through the anti-cult forum to which I contributed. Like me, he too had been in the guru cult and had seen through it. He was a career military officer and, like me but unlike the other ex-cultists, he was politically conservative. He posted under the nickname, New Age Redneck - a reference to the fact that he was not one of the hoity-toity leftists eventhough he had, like me, been sucked into a New Age cult at an early and impressionable age.

So, when it came time to give my blog a name three years ago, I took my inspiration from him. "Born Again Redneck" means that I was born as trailer trash but moved away from my roots only to rediscover them later and be born again into acceptance of my middle-brow mediocrity.

Then a few months ago I added the word "Yogi" and explained why:

I've changed the name of the blog a couple of times because I know that calling myself a redneck is inaccurate and pretentious but I keep reverting back to it because I don't want to give up the links that refer to me. I added the "yogi" bit to make it funnier - and a little bit more accurate.

Now, I'm off to barbecue some possum and decant some fresh moonshine - er, I mean finish listening to Brahms' "German Requiem" before I go prune my roses and transplant some violets. Maybe I should call this blog Schizophrenic Bourgeois Redneck.

Another time I thought of calling this blog "Born Again Patriot":

I originally called this blog "Born Again Redneck" because I wanted to blog about living in small-town America and because it was catchy and described the cheerfulness, confidence and cockiness that I felt at the time but, now that I have lived here for a while, I see that I can never aspire to be a redneck. I would be pretentious if I tried. So, I am thinking of changing the name of this blog to "Born Again Patriot."

That would have been a more appropriate name but I was still reluctant to change it because I did not want to lose the links to my blog. Lately I've noticed that quite a few bloggers have changed the names of their blogs but kept their old urls. The latest to do so was Dee whose blog used to be called "The Chatterbox Chronicles." She kept her old url but changed the title to "Conservatism With Heart" to match her new radio talk-show of the same name.

Well, just as I was falling asleep last night, I had a flash of inspiration and realized that the name best suited to this blog and which most accurately describes me is "Born Again Bourgeois."

Bourgeois is used as an adjective nowadays but it originally was a noun.

This is Merriam-Webster's definition of bourgeois.

Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French burgeis townsman, from burc, borg town, from Latin burgus
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the townsman or of the social middle class
2 : marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity
3 : dominated by commercial and industrial interests : CAPITALISTIC

From Brian's List of Errors:

In the original French, a bourgeois was originally merely a free inhabitant of a bourg, or town. Through a natural evolution it became the label for members of the property-owning class, then of the middle class. As an adjective it is used with contempt by bohemians and Marxists to label conservatives whose views are not sufficiently revolutionary. The class made up of bourgeois (which is both the singular and the plural form) is the bourgeoisie. Shaky spellers are prone to leave out the E from the middle because “eoi” is not a natural combination in English; but these words have remarkably enough retained their French pronunciation: boorzhwah and boorzhwazee. The feminine form, “bourgeoise,” is rarely encountered in English.

So originally bourgeois was a noun like the Dutch word burgher meaning a townsman as opposed to a country-bumpkin or peasant.

From Wiki:

Burgher may refer to:

• a title; in the European Middle Ages, a burgher was any freeman of a burgh or borough; or any inhabitant of a borough, a person who lives in town (in Dutch the word for citizen is burger and the German cognate is Bürger). The term may also refer to a member of the middle class such as in bourgeois.

In pre-modern Sweden and Finland, burghers were an independent estate with a monopoly in trade; the label survives in both countries. In Finland, porvari means "right-winger" as in porvaripuolueet which means "right-wing parties". In Sweden, the four modern centre-right parliamentary political parties are collectively referred to as de borgerliga (in English, the burgherly).

• Burgher people, an ethnic group
• Burgher, a member of the social class of bourgeoisie

• an enfranchised citizen of the South African Republic (Transvaal) during the years of its existence (1857 to 1900).

From The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon:

BURGHER - Obs. A citizen of a borough, usually owning a house within the city limits, and prosperous enough to hire others to work for them.

That describes me to a T. I may not live within the city limits but I do own houses in the nearest town (which I rent out to tenants.) I really like the word "burgher" especially since it was commonly used by my Afrikaner ancestors but I'm afraid that I will end up being called a "burger" or worse (given my propensity to be a clown and make jokes that no one else understands) - a hamburger. So, I'll stick with bourgeois.

Reefer madness

Smoking Pot Makes People More Prone to Psychosis:

Smoking marijuana increases the risk of developing psychosis later in life by 40 percent, with heavy users having an even higher risk of mental problems, British researchers said.

The researchers analyzed 35 previous studies and concluded that using marijuana or cannabis raised the risk of hallucinating and being delusional later in life.

[...]

Nordentoft said the study is the best to date, although like any meta-analysis it is only as strong as the weakest trial under review. Because a large-scale trial of an illegal drug isn't feasible, the results can't be confirmed by the highest scientific standard, a double-blind study.

[...]

Zammit's team found, independently of the transient intoxication effects of the drug and independently of what they call "confounding factors," such as existing mental health problems or other drug use. "We can't be sure it is causal," he says of the association. "[But] studies find an association rather consistently....It's always possible people who use cannabis may be different [in some way] than those who don't."

Okay, here's my unscientific two cents on this rather unscientific non-double-blind study:

I used pot almost every day from the age of 18 until 25. In that time I knew lots of potheads and many of them were much heavier users than I ever was. Most of those who smoked it occasionally were fairly sane, held good jobs and coped with reality but all of the heavy users were messed up, couldn't hold jobs and were out of touch with reality in various degrees ranging from being eccentric woo-woo hippy-trippy-dippy folks to full-blown delusional "I hear voices" schizophrenics. The latter had all shown signs of mental illness before they smoked pot.

I also experienced insanity during the period of heavy usage in my hippy days but pot did not cause my insanity. It simply brought underlying mental instability to the fore. Simple youthful timidity and lack of self-confidence got blown out of proportion into paranoia. Plain old natural worry turned into paralyzing anxiety. Imagination became delusion. It was not only the bad effects that the drug had on me that made me stop. I also stopped because I could no longer stand the company of potheads. They seemed to be stuck in some nightmare, trapped and unable to take control of their lives.

Until a proper double-blind study is done, I will continue to believe the evidence of my own observations: that heavy pot users are already mentally ill. Even the study says that the incidence of severe mental illness such as schizophrenia has not increased since the Sixties when pot usage first became common in the West. If pot caused insanity then you would expect an increase in diagnoses of insanity but that has not happened.

But diagnosis of mental illness (unlike physical diseases) can be pretty subjective and the definitions have changed over the years. There may have been an increase in insanity. Living in San Francisco I sure met a lot of people who would be called nuts in any other time or place but they were accepted as normal. And yes, most of them were potheads.

I must also admit that I cannot be absolutely sure that some aspects of my mental illness during my pot using years were not caused by the drug. It opens up areas of the mind that are best left alone if you have a wild imagination or any sort of mental instability. It's not just something that makes you high. It is a psychedelic drug. The psychedelic effects become less noticeable after continued use and most potheads use it to relax but, underneath the surface, those effects are still going on.

My hunch is that pot probably can cause madness but it's more likely that potheads are already nuts. Drug addicts - like alcoholics - are already mentally ill and are using drugs to self-medicate. They would be messed up with or without drugs.

My cousin Jessica

Do you remember the post that I did about my cousin Jessica Joubert being in the news? Well, now there is a YouTube video of her:

Dogs I have known 3: Corrie

Chihuahua saves boy from rattlesnake:

Dog takes bites meant for 1-year-old, survives to prance with pride.

MASONVILLE, Colo. - Zoey is a Chihuahua, but when a rattlesnake lunged at her owners’ 1-year-old grandson, she was a real bulldog.

Booker West was splashing his hands in a birdbath in his grandparents’ northern Colorado back yard when the snake slithered up to the toddler, rattled and struck. Five-pound Zoey jumped in the way and took the bites.

“She got in between Booker and the snake, and that’s when I heard her yipe,” Monty Long, the boy’s grandfather, said Thursday.

The dog required treatment and for a time it appeared she might not survive. Now she prances about.

“These little bitty dogs, they just don’t really get credit,” Booker’s grandma Denise Long told the Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald.

I used to think that the only small dogs worth having were terriers. My first dog as a kid was a little mongrel terrier and every terrier I ever knew was brave and loyal but I kind of looked down my nose at all other small dogs. In my mind they were yappy little "rats on strings" - until I adopted my first chihuahua.

About 11 years ago I had two dogs: Saffie, a border collie (who died last month at the age of 14) and Rosie, a little black and tan terrier. One day while walking my dogs in the park, I met a woman, Mary, who rescued dogs. We hit it off and I gave her my phone number.

One day Mary called and asked if I would help her out. A 6 month old female chihuahua had been brought into the pound. It had been found on the streets badly beaten up and had a broken jaw. The pound had deemed it "vicious" and unadoptable and were about to kill it. Mary had taken the pup home but, with dozens of other rescued dogs to care for, she had no time to nurse the chihuahua back to health and she feared for it's safety among her larger dogs. She asked me if I would give it a home. Without even seeing the dog, I said yes. About an hour later, Mary arrived with the "rat on a string" and handed it to me. The pup was so small it was just a handful of fluff. She immediately snuggled into me knowing that she was home at last. I named her Corrie.

It soon became obvious why the pound had decided that Corrie was "vicious." She wasn't vicious for the sake of being vicious but she was brave and fearless. The first day that I took her to the park with the other dogs, Saffie caught a gopher and dropped it when it struggled. Corrie immediately pounced on it and swallowed the gopher head-first. Now Corrie was not much bigger than the gopher, and while it was funny to see it, I worried that she would choke so I tried pulling the gopher out. Corrie refused to let go. It was quite a struggle to dislodge that gopher.

Corrie soon asserted her dominance over the other dogs and is still "the boss" to this day. She cured me of my prejudice against "rats on a string" and, over the next few years, I adopted two more chihuahuas from Mary. Back in their homeland, Mexico, chihuahuas are called "lion-hearted dogs." In the wild, they hunt in packs and kill sheep.

Below: Corrie at the ripe old age of nearly 12. She has mellowed out and no longer swallows whole gophers - she let's the younger dogs do the dirty work nowadays.



For other dogs that I have known see Part one - Chummy and Part two - Punchy.

Power

I can't say that I've never felt powerless. I have - many times. I've just never made a habit of it and indulged in feeling like a victim. As soon as I figured that I was a sucker, I got out of whatever situation was sucking me dry. I'm just not willing to be a host for parasites. If you've got something to give, I take it - and return the favor. Authentic givers are usually good takers - and vice versa. To me, life is all about give and take.

But......not everyone else thinks like that. I've known a lot of people who somehow don't know how to give and take. Their giving is fake and their taking is manipulative and there's always some sort of underlying power struggle going on in their minds. I'm not interested in having power over others so passive-aggressive folks mystify me.

(As I wrote that some critter began to scream outside my window. I'm guessing that a fox caught one of the chickens but it sounded more like a mammal squeal than a bird squawk so it may have been a rabbit or some other wild critter being eaten. Nature is raw in tooth and claw. And humans are animals even though they are also a lot more than that.)

To get back to discussing power - I can't remember exactly when I first realized that people were troglodytes with fancy suits but it was some time during my teens and it explained a lot that had made no sense till then. It was not "nice" to find that I lived in a dog-eat-dog world instead of the fanciful "Jane Austen" er - "Little House on the Prairie" world that I had lived in till then.

(I struck out "Jane Austen" because she actually understood that ladies and gentlemen are cavemen in fancy clothes who considered income before "romance" - like any practical troglodyte would. I substituted "Little House on the Prairie" because it's so "nice" and clean and wholesome; the way we all want to be and can be and should be if we wish this world to be more than a charnel-house.)

Okay - power. So maybe I've felt powerless but it's always only been temporary because eventually you realize that the only real power is individual power and you'd better assert it before you get eaten like a poor helpless critter. Sure you can rely on the power of a group but it's iffy. If you don't toe the line, the group can (and will) kick you out - or eat you for breakfast.

It's tricky: you need groups sometimes but they can't be relied upon. In the end it's better to stand on your own two feet - which brings me back down to earth and the consideration of why some people feel powerless. I see it a lot with the pie-in-the-sky New Age touchy-feely Marxist/Lennonist "Imagine" folks. Are they are afraid or ashamed to exert their power?

Why? I don't want to make assumptions and would appreciate some answers. The whole passive-aggressive "victim" game mystifies me. But it seems that a whole political philosophy and way of life is based on this feeling of powerlessness; that we need a Big Brother government to take care of us because we are helpless.

I'll hazard a guess and show my prejudices - people who need Big Brother are twerps who are lazy and don't want to take responsibility.

Thackeray

The British novelist, William Makepeace Thackeray was born in Calcutta, India on July 18th, 1811. He first made his name with "The Book of Snobs" and became famous with the publication of "Vanity Fair." He is most well-known in America for his poem Pocahontas.

Wearied arm and broken sword
Wage in vain the desperate fight;
Round him press a countless horde,
He is but a single knight.
Hark! a cry of triumph shrill
Through the wilderness resounds,
As, with twenty bleeding wounds,
Sinks the warrior, fighting still.

Now they heap the funeral pyre,
And the torch of death they light;
Ah! 'tis hard to die by fire!
Who will shield the captive knight?
Round the stake with fiendish cry
Wheel and dance the savage crowd;
Cold the victim's mien and proud,
And his breast is bared to die.

Who will shield the fearless heart?
Who avert the murderous blade?
From the throng with sudden start,
See, there springs an Indian maid.
Quick she stands before the knight:
"Loose the chain, unbind the ring!
I am daughter of the king,
And I claim the Indian right!"

Dauntlessly aside she flings
Lifted axe and thirsty knife;
Fondly to his heart she clings,
And her bosom guards his life!
Still 'tis told by Indian fires
How a daughter of their sires
Saved a captive Englishman.

I love my weeds

As Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote:

What would the world be, once bereft
Of wet and of wildness? Let them be left,
O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet.

The fact is you have to love weeds here in Oregon. It rains so much that it's impossible to tame your garden. Our neighbors have a sign at their front gate: "Free weeds - pick all you want."

Buttercups on the lawn.























I wanted to take some pics of the oxeye daisies that line our half-mile driveway but it is drizzling this morning and the daisies are all bowed down with the weight of the raindrops. I could not have deliberately planted a more beautiful display.















































The California poppy is a weed here.

































Yarrow is also a weed. I'm so glad that I love my weeds.

"Keep Cool with Coolidge"

My all time favorite President, Calvin Coolidge, was elected in 1924 on the slogan "Keep Cool with Coolidge." "Silent Cal" wasn't quite as silent as I thought. Here is his inaugural address:

My Countrymen:

No one can contemplate current conditions without finding much that is satisfying and still more that is encouraging. Our own country is leading the world in the general readjustment to the results of the great conflict. Many of its burdens will bear heavily upon us for years, and the secondary and indirect effects we must expect to experience for some time. But we are beginning to comprehend more definitely what course should be pursued, what remedies ought to be applied, what actions should be taken for our deliverance, and are clearly manifesting a determined will faithfully and conscientiously to adopt these methods of relief. Already we have sufficiently rearranged our domestic affairs so that confidence has returned, business has revived, and we appear to be entering an era of prosperity which is gradually reaching into every part of the Nation. Realizing that we can not live unto ourselves alone, we have contributed of our resources and our counsel to the relief of the suffering and the settlement of the disputes among the European nations. Because of what America is and what America has done, a firmer courage, a higher hope, inspires the heart of all humanity.

These results have not occurred by mere chance. They have been secured by a constant and enlightened effort marked by many sacrifices and extending over many generations. We can not continue these brilliant successes in the future, unless we continue to learn from the past. It is necessary to keep the former experiences of our country both at home and abroad continually before us, if we are to have any science of government. If we wish to erect new structures, we must have a definite knowledge of the old foundations. We must realize that human nature is about the most constant thing in the universe and that the essentials of human relationship do not change. We must frequently take our bearings from these fixed stars of our political firmament if we expect to hold a true course. If we examine carefully what we have done, we can determine the more accurately what we can do.

We stand at the opening of the one hundred and fiftieth year since our national consciousness first asserted itself by unmistakable action with an array of force. The old sentiment of detached and dependent colonies disappeared in the new sentiment of a united and independent Nation. Men began to discard the narrow confines of a local charter for the broader opportunities of a national constitution. Under the eternal urge of freedom we became an independent Nation. A little less than 50 years later that freedom and independence were reasserted in the face of all the world, and guarded, supported, and secured by the Monroe doctrine. The narrow fringe of States along the Atlantic seaboard advanced its frontiers across the hills and plains of an intervening continent until it passed down the golden slope to the Pacific. We made freedom a birthright. We extended our domain over distant islands in order to safeguard our own interests and accepted the consequent obligation to bestow justice and liberty upon less favored peoples. In the defense of our own ideals and in the general cause of liberty we entered the Great War. When victory had been fully secured, we withdrew to our own shores unrecompensed save in the consciousness of duty done.

Throughout all these experiences we have enlarged our freedom, we have strengthened our independence. We have been, and propose to be, more and more American. We believe that we can best serve our own country and most successfully discharge our obligations to humanity by continuing to be openly and candidly, intensely and scrupulously, American. If we have any heritage, it has been that. If we have any destiny, we have found it in that direction.

But if we wish to continue to be distinctively American, we must continue to make that term comprehensive enough to embrace the legitimate desires of a civilized and enlightened people determined in all their relations to pursue a conscientious and religious life. We can not permit ourselves to be narrowed and dwarfed by slogans and phrases. It is not the adjective, but the substantive, which is of real importance. It is not the name of the action, but the result of the action, which is the chief concern. It will be well not to be too much disturbed by the thought of either isolation or entanglement of pacifists and militarists. The physical configuration of the earth has separated us from all of the Old World, but the common brotherhood of man, the highest law of all our being, has united us by inseparable bonds with all humanity. Our country represents nothing but peaceful intentions toward all the earth, but it ought not to fail to maintain such a military force as comports with the dignity and security of a great people. It ought to be a balanced force, intensely modern, capable of defense by sea and land, beneath the surface and in the air. But it should be so conducted that all the world may see in it, not a menace, but an instrument of security and peace.

This Nation believes thoroughly in an honorable peace under which the rights of its citizens are to be everywhere protected. It has never found that the necessary enjoyment of such a peace could be maintained only by a great and threatening array of arms. In common with other nations, it is now more determined than ever to promote peace through friendliness and good will, through mutual understandings and mutual forbearance. We have never practiced the policy of competitive armaments. We have recently committed ourselves by covenants with the other great nations to a limitation of our sea power. As one result of this, our Navy ranks larger, in comparison, than it ever did before. Removing the burden of expense and jealousy, which must always accrue from a keen rivalry, is one of the most effective methods of diminishing that unreasonable hysteria and misunderstanding which are the most potent means of fomenting war. This policy represents a new departure in the world. It is a thought, an ideal, which has led to an entirely new line of action. It will not be easy to maintain. Some never moved from their old positions, some are constantly slipping back to the old ways of thought and the old action of seizing a musket and relying on force. America has taken the lead in this new direction, and that lead America must continue to hold. If we expect others to rely on our fairness and justice we must show that we rely on their fairness and justice.

If we are to judge by past experience, there is much to be hoped for in international relations from frequent conferences and consultations. We have before us the beneficial results of the Washington conference and the various consultations recently held upon European affairs, some of which were in response to our suggestions and in some of which we were active participants. Even the failures can not but be accounted useful and an immeasurable advance over threatened or actual warfare. I am strongly in favor of continuation of this policy, whenever conditions are such that there is even a promise that practical and favorable results might be secured.

In conformity with the principle that a display of reason rather than a threat of force should be the determining factor in the intercourse among nations, we have long advocated the peaceful settlement of disputes by methods of arbitration and have negotiated many treaties to secure that result. The same considerations should lead to our adherence to the Permanent Court of International Justice. Where great principles are involved, where great movements are under way which promise much for the welfare of humanity by reason of the very fact that many other nations have given such movements their actual support, we ought not to withhold our own sanction because of any small and inessential difference, but only upon the ground of the most important and compelling fundamental reasons. We can not barter away our independence or our sovereignty, but we ought to engage in no refinements of logic, no sophistries, and no subterfuges, to argue away the undoubted duty of this country by reason of the might of its numbers, the power of its resources, and its position of leadership in the world, actively and comprehensively to signify its approval and to bear its full share of the responsibility of a candid and disinterested attempt at the establishment of a tribunal for the administration of even-handed justice between nation and nation. The weight of our enormous influence must be cast upon the side of a reign not of force but of law and trial, not by battle but by reason.

We have never any wish to interfere in the political conditions of any other countries. Especially are we determined not to become implicated in the political controversies of the Old World. With a great deal of hesitation, we have responded to appeals for help to maintain order, protect life and property, and establish responsible government in some of the small countries of the Western Hemisphere. Our private citizens have advanced large sums of money to assist in the necessary financing and relief of the Old World. We have not failed, nor shall we fail to respond, whenever necessary to mitigate human suffering and assist in the rehabilitation of distressed nations. These, too, are requirements which must be met by reason of our vast powers and the place we hold in the world.

Some of the best thought of mankind has long been seeking for a formula for permanent peace. Undoubtedly the clarification of the principles of international law would be helpful, and the efforts of scholars to prepare such a work for adoption by the various nations should have our sympathy and support. Much may be hoped for from the earnest studies of those who advocate the outlawing of aggressive war. But all these plans and preparations, these treaties and covenants, will not of themselves be adequate. One of the greatest dangers to peace lies in the economic pressure to which people find themselves subjected. One of the most practical things to be done in the world is to seek arrangements under which such pressure may be removed, so that opportunity may be renewed and hope may be revived. There must be some assurance that effort and endeavor will be followed by success and prosperity. In the making and financing of such adjustments there is not only an opportunity, but a real duty, for America to respond with her counsel and her resources. Conditions must be provided under which people can make a living and work out of their difficulties. But there is another element, more important than all, without which there can not be the slightest hope of a permanent peace. That element lies in the heart of humanity. Unless the desire for peace be cherished there, unless this fundamental and only natural source of brotherly love be cultivated to its highest degree, all artificial efforts will be in vain. Peace will come when there is realization that only under a reign of law, based on righteousness and supported by the religious conviction of the brotherhood of man, can there be any hope of a complete and satisfying life. Parchment will fail, the sword will fail, it is only the spiritual nature of man that can be triumphant.

It seems altogether probable that we can contribute most to these important objects by maintaining our position of political detachment and independence. We are not identified with any Old World interests. This position should be made more and more clear in our relations with all foreign countries. We are at peace with all of them. Our program is never to oppress, but always to assist. But while we do justice to others, we must require that justice be done to us. With us a treaty of peace means peace, and a treaty of amity means amity. We have made great contributions to the settlement of contentious differences in both Europe and Asia. But there is a very definite point beyond which we can not go. We can only help those who help themselves. Mindful of these limitations, the one great duty that stands out requires us to use our enormous powers to trim the balance of the world.

While we can look with a great deal of pleasure upon what we have done abroad, we must remember that our continued success in that direction depends upon what we do at home. Since its very outset, it has been found necessary to conduct our Government by means of political parties. That system would not have survived from generation to generation if it had not been fundamentally sound and provided the best instrumentalities for the most complete expression of the popular will. It is not necessary to claim that it has always worked perfectly. It is enough to know that nothing better has been devised. No one would deny that there should be full and free expression and an opportunity for independence of action within the party. There is no salvation in a narrow and bigoted partisanship. But if there is to be responsible party government, the party label must be something more than a mere device for securing office. Unless those who are elected under the same party designation are willing to assume sufficient responsibility and exhibit sufficient loyalty and coherence, so that they can cooperate with each other in the support of the broad general principles, of the party platform, the election is merely a mockery, no decision is made at the polls, and there is no representation of the popular will. Common honesty and good faith with the people who support a party at the polls require that party, when it enters office, to assume the control of that portion of the Government to which it has been elected. Any other course is bad faith and a violation of the party pledges.

When the country has bestowed its confidence upon a party by making it a majority in the Congress, it has a right to expect such unity of action as will make the party majority an effective instrument of government. This Administration has come into power with a very clear and definite mandate from the people. The expression of the popular will in favor of maintaining our constitutional guarantees was overwhelming and decisive. There was a manifestation of such faith in the integrity of the courts that we can consider that issue rejected for some time to come. Likewise, the policy of public ownership of railroads and certain electric utilities met with unmistakable defeat. The people declared that they wanted their rights to have not a political but a judicial determination, and their independence and freedom continued and supported by having the ownership and control of their property, not in the Government, but in their own hands. As they always do when they have a fair chance, the people demonstrated that they are sound and are determined to have a sound government.

When we turn from what was rejected to inquire what was accepted, the policy that stands out with the greatest clearness is that of economy in public expenditure with reduction and reform of taxation. The principle involved in this effort is that of conservation. The resources of this country are almost beyond computation. No mind can comprehend them. But the cost of our combined governments is likewise almost beyond definition. Not only those who are now making their tax returns, but those who meet the enhanced cost of existence in their monthly bills, know by hard experience what this great burden is and what it does. No matter what others may want, these people want a drastic economy. They are opposed to waste. They know that extravagance lengthens the hours and diminishes the rewards of their labor. I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government. Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form.

If extravagance were not reflected in taxation, and through taxation both directly and indirectly injuriously affecting the people, it would not be of so much consequence. The wisest and soundest method of solving our tax problem is through economy. Fortunately, of all the great nations this country is best in a position to adopt that simple remedy. We do not any longer need wartime revenues. The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this republic the rewards of industry belong to those who earn them. The only constitutional tax is the tax which ministers to public necessity. The property of the country belongs to the people of the country. Their title is absolute. They do not support any privileged class; they do not need to maintain great military forces; they ought not to be burdened with a great array of public employees. They are not required to make any contribution to Government expenditures except that which they voluntarily assess upon themselves through the action of their own representatives. Whenever taxes become burdensome a remedy can be applied by the people; but if they do not act for themselves, no one can be very successful in acting for them.

The time is arriving when we can have further tax reduction, when, unless we wish to hamper the people in their right to earn a living, we must have tax reform. The method of raising revenue ought not to impede the transaction of business; it ought to encourage it. I am opposed to extremely high rates, because they produce little or no revenue, because they are bad for the country, and, finally, because they are wrong. We can not finance the country, we can not improve social conditions, through any system of injustice, even if we attempt to inflict it upon the rich. Those who suffer the most harm will be the poor. This country believes in prosperity. It is absurd to suppose that it is envious of those who are already prosperous. The wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful. The verdict of the country has been given on this question. That verdict stands. We shall do well to heed it.

These questions involve moral issues. We need not concern ourselves much about the rights of property if we will faithfully observe the rights of persons. Under our institutions their rights are supreme. It is not property but the right to hold property, both great and small, which our Constitution guarantees. All owners of property are charged with a service. These rights and duties have been revealed, through the conscience of society, to have a divine sanction. The very stability of our society rests upon production and conservation. For individuals or for governments to waste and squander their resources is to deny these rights and disregard these obligations. The result of economic dissipation to a nation is always moral decay.

These policies of better international understandings, greater economy, and lower taxes have contributed largely to peaceful and prosperous industrial relations. Under the helpful influences of restrictive immigration and a protective tariff, employment is plentiful, the rate of pay is high, and wage earners are in a state of contentment seldom before seen. Our transportation systems have been gradually recovering and have been able to meet all the requirements of the service. Agriculture has been very slow in reviving, but the price of cereals at last indicates that the day of its deliverance is at hand.

We are not without our problems, but our most important problem is not to secure new advantages but to maintain those which we already possess. Our system of government made up of three separate and independent departments, our divided sovereignty composed of Nation and State, the matchless wisdom that is enshrined in our Constitution, all these need constant effort and tireless vigilance for their protection and support.

In a republic the first rule for the guidance of the citizen is obedience to law. Under a despotism the law may be imposed upon the subject. He has no voice in its making, no influence in its administration, it does not represent him. Under a free government the citizen makes his own laws, chooses his own administrators, which do represent him. Those who want their rights respected under the Constitution and the law ought to set the example themselves of observing the Constitution and the law. While there may be those of high intelligence who violate the law at times, the barbarian and the defective always violate it. Those who disregard the rules of society are not exhibiting a superior intelligence, are not promoting freedom and independence, are not following the path of civilization, but are displaying the traits of ignorance, of servitude, of savagery, and treading the way that leads back to the jungle.

The essence of a republic is representative government. Our Congress represents the people and the States. In all legislative affairs it is the natural collaborator with the President. In spite of all the criticism which often falls to its lot, I do not hesitate to say that there is no more independent and effective legislative body in the world. It is, and should be, jealous of its prerogative. I welcome its cooperation, and expect to share with it not only the responsibility, but the credit, for our common effort to secure beneficial legislation.

These are some of the principles which America represents. We have not by any means put them fully into practice, but we have strongly signified our belief in them. The encouraging feature of our country is not that it has reached its destination, but that it has overwhelmingly expressed its determination to proceed in the right direction. It is true that we could, with profit, be less sectional and more national in our thought. It would be well if we could replace much that is only a false and ignorant prejudice with a true and enlightened pride of race. But the last election showed that appeals to class and nationality had little effect. We were all found loyal to a common citizenship. The fundamental precept of liberty is toleration. We can not permit any inquisition either within or without the law or apply any religious test to the holding of office. The mind of America must be forever free.

It is in such contemplations, my fellow countrymen, which are not exhaustive but only representative, that I find ample warrant for satisfaction and encouragement. We should not let the much that is to do obscure the much which has been done. The past and present show faith and hope and courage fully justified. Here stands our country, an example of tranquillity at home, a patron of tranquillity abroad. Here stands its Government, aware of its might but obedient to its conscience. Here it will continue to stand, seeking peace and prosperity, solicitous for the welfare of the wage earner, promoting enterprise, developing waterways and natural resources, attentive to the intuitive counsel of womanhood, encouraging education, desiring the advancement of religion, supporting the cause of justice and honor among the nations. America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and force. No ambition, no temptation, lures her to thought of foreign dominions. The legions which she sends forth are armed, not with the sword, but with the cross. The higher state to which she seeks the allegiance of all mankind is not of human, but of divine origin. She cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God.

Now, that's a real Republican.

Qualified franchise

From Teddy Roosevelt's The Federalist City. 1783-1800:

New York was indeed a dreary city when the king’s troops left it after their sojourn of seven years.

[...]

The achievement of liberty had not worked any radical change in the municipal government of the city; and the constitution under which the State entered on its new life of independence was not ultra-democratic, although of course marking a long stride toward democracy. The suffrage was rigidly limited. There were two kinds of franchise: any man owning a freehold worth £20, or paying rent to the value of forty shillings could vote for the members of the Assembly; while only a freeholder whose freehold was worth £100 could vote for senator or governor. Almost all the executive and legislative officers, whether of the State, the county, or the town, were appointed by the Council of Appointment, which consisted of the governor and four senators. The large land-holding families thus still retained very much influence. The destruction of the power of the great Tory families, however, had of course diminished the weight of the rich landowning class as a whole; and in the country the decisive power was in the hands of the small freeholding farmers.

The State was not yet governed by an absolute democracy, because as yet no one save theorists were believers in an absolute democracy, and even manhood suffrage was not advocated by many persons; while the unenfranchised were not actively discontented. The framers of the State constitution were not mere paper-government visionaries; they were shrewd, honest, practical politicians, acquainted with men and affairs.

From Voting Timeline 1776-2000:

1776 - White men with property can vote. Free black men can vote in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. (The Progress Report adds -- in Maryland between 1776-1783 free black men could vote, but between 1783-1810 only those who were freed prior to 1783 were permitted to vote, and after 1810 no black men at all were allowed to vote.)

1789 - Establishment of US democracy. White men with property can vote. Poor people, Women, Native Americans, and enslaved African- Americans cannot vote.

1790 - From 1770 to 1790 each state has individual naturalization laws. In 1790 the US passes its first naturalization law to grant citizenship to white men and some women. The right to vote is tied directly to citizenship status; it is only for whites who have lived in the country for 2 years. In 1798 the law is changed so immigrant whites have to live in the US for 14 years before they can become citizens. This changed to 5 years after 1902.

1820 - The property laws are taken off the books and whites can vote even if they do not own property. But they must pay a poll tax or be able to read and, in some places, they must pass religious tests before they can vote.

From "Casting a Ballot With a Certain Cast of Mind" by DANIEL CASSE:

A new book argues that fewer people should vote.

William F. Buckley Jr. once said that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone directory than by the entire faculty of Harvard University. Bryan Caplan must think that Mr. Buckley is a boob. "The Myth of the Rational Voter" brazenly argues, in essence, that the American public is made up of morons whose misjudgments about economic policy will have parlous effects on the state of the nation and its future prosperity.

At a time when "American Idol" draws more voters than most local elections, or when Larry King's questions seem dumber than Paris Hilton's answers, one is reluctant to dismiss Mr. Caplan as just another ivory-tower elitist. At the very least, he relies on a proven formula.

Like a few recent best sellers--"Freakonomics," "The Tipping Point," "The Wisdom of Crowds"--"The Myth of the Rational Voter" unwraps economic theories and applies them to everyday life. Mr. Caplan's thesis, though, lacks any semblance of a compliment: The "unwisdom of crowds" is closer to his point. He believes that the American public is biased against sensible, empirically proved economic policies about which nearly all economists agree. Voters, he says, are not just ignorant in the sense of having insufficient information. They actually hold wrong-headed and damaging beliefs about how the economy works.

[...]

Mr. Caplan thinks the rational-ignorance theorists are not only wrong but in deep denial about the deficiencies of democracy. Citing reams of survey data, he shows that unschooled voters have consistent opinions about free trade (they don't like it), foreigners (they don't like them), wage and price controls (helpful), and the economic condition of the world (things are getting worse). The majority of economists, according to Mr. Caplan, maintain that these opinions have no factual foundation. They are simply a form of bias or ideology.

If Mr. Caplan is right, many popular nostrums about the majesty of American democracy need to be thrown out the window. "Trust the people," for instance, ends up as a disastrous mandate for tariffs, government interference and declining prosperity. Democracy, in Mr. Caplan's view, is not merely the least bad choice; it is a flawed system that delivers socially suboptimal results to its deluded citizens.

When I turned 18 and could vote for the first time, there were two major political parties in South Africa: the National Party which represented the Afrikaners and the United Party which represented the British. Both parties supported apartheid. The anti-apartheid parties, Communist Party and the Liberal Party, had been banned earlier.

There was one other anti-apartheid party which had not been banned, the Progressive Party. It proposed the gradual dismantling of apartheid and a multi-racial (but qualified) franchise. The qualifications needed to vote were based on education and property ownership. This seemed like a good compromise to me at that time and I campaigned for our local Progressive candidate going door to door canvassing for votes. We lost but it was an exhilarating experience to be involved in hands-on politics for the first time in my life.

White South Africans were terrified of a universal franchise because they were outnumbered at that time five to one by blacks. (Nowadays it is ten to one.) The qualified franchise would have empowered the black middle-class and kept the illiterate and uncivilized tribal masses from dominating politics. To me it made a lot of sense at the time but later I met more radical anti-apartheid activists who convinced me that the qualified franchise was unacceptable, bourgeois and counter-revolutionary.

I still think a qualified franchise is a good thing. I don't like aristocrats but I distrust democracy. However I definitely don't like the idea of a franchise based solely on wealth; a plutocratic oligarchy. My choice for enfranchisement qualifications would be: ability to recite at least three Psalms from the Bible and quote the Sermon on the Mount in full; ability to recite at least three soliloquies from Shakespeare's plays and being able to identify at least three arias from Mozart's operas.

Of course my tongue is firmly lodged in my cheek. Democracy sadly is here to stay and no way will we ever have a qualified franchise. What a pity.

Why bother blogging?

I've just finished reading the news of the day and most of it is gloomy. Buying into the doom and gloom doesn't help anyone. You just become part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

I was just reading those two gloomy articles that I posted and I wondered if I should have bothered. Everyone could have read them in their original form elsewhere. The only thing that I added to them were little snippets of my own opinions and opinions are cheap. Most of the time I am not particularly pleased with my blogging. Anyone can bloviate. The only time I feel as if I've added anything to the discussion is when I write my own stuff and then only if that stuff is cheerful and optimistic. If opinions are cheap, then pessimistic opinions must be dirt cheap.

Okay, so you have to be aware of the problems before you can do anything to fix them but it's not like I haven't known what the problems are. I've known for years and the problems have been the same for years. So why bother to keep on focusing on the problems? Actually, I try not to do so. Living out here in the boonies, isolates me from most of the horriblenesses of the 21st century and I don't really think about them most of the time - until I read the news.

When I was an angry young man - fired up about the injustices of the world - my Mom used to say to me: "Remember that Jesus said not to fight evil but concentrate on the good."

I would say to her: "How can you ignore it when you know that it's wrong and want to change it?"

She would answer: "If you focus on the beauty in life, then you will be happy. When you're happy, you can add something and give love. When you're miserable, you are useless and can't help anyone."

It took me years to realize that she was right. Now, I think I'll look for some pretty pics to post.

Confessions of a former flower-child: The Summer of Love

In 1967 I was 19 going on 20 and still living in South Africa and still involved in the anti-apartheid movement. But two things happened that year that made me realize that something was not quite right. The first was being arrested by the Secret Service, accused of being a communist and jailed. The cops had to let me go eventually because they could not prove that I was a member of the banned Communist Party. I'd known for a while that many of the people whom I knew in the anti-apartheid movement were communists and had tolerated them eventhough I detested communism but, after my run-in with the Secret Service cops, I began to see the communists in a different light.

I began to think that maybe I was mixed up with the wrong crowd. Till then I had seen them as dedicated revolutionaries filled with righteous anger at injustice but now I began to see their anger as hatred and resentment. It was not creative. It was destructive. They were miserable people who had nothing to give. They were motivated not by brotherly love but by misanthropy. They did not really want to help the down-trodden. They wanted to manipulate them. And I did not want to end up spending years in prison for people that I did not respect.

There were several different cliques inside the anti-apartheid movement. One of these cliques was made up of the artistic types. The serious communists called them Bohemians or Beatniks and constantly nagged them to stop smoking pot, boozing and partying. "You can party after the revolution," the commies told the Beatniks. I drifted towards this clique and was soon taking drugs and partying heavily.

The Beatniks talked a lot about what was happening in San Francisco. In January of 1967 there had been a "Human Be-In" in Golden Gate Park. In May the song "San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Flowers in Your Hair)" was released sometime around my twentieth birthday. There was news from San Francisco that 200,000 hippies would gather in Golden Gate Park that July for a "Love-in." All this intrigued me. A revolution based on joy and love sounded much better than a communist revolution.

One of the Beatniks was a man who had been a trapeze artist in a circus. He came from a long line of circus performers. His parents had trained him and he had been very successful until he had fallen from a trapeze and been too badly injured to ever perform again. He got a big insurance settlement and moved into the really fancy penthouse on the 30th floor of a luxury beach-front hotel where he held a non-stop party and dished out drugs like candy. His guests were an odd mix of actors, artists and academics (who were "slumming") and beach-bums and surfer-boys (who satisfied his sexual appetites in return for free drugs.)

One night in June he announced that he had obtained a copy of the Beatles' new album, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." I was very high on a cocktail of drugs and, as soon as the music began to play, I went on a psychedelic "trip." It's almost impossible to describe a "trip." All I can say is that I was overwhelmed with beauty and filled with an ecstasy I had never experienced before. As I lay on the floor "watching" the Beatles music manifest itself in weird and wonderful cartoons, I began to laugh. I finally "knew" the answer to everything.

The next day, I knew that I had to leave South Africa, get away from the dour and humorless communists and join the real revolution of love and joy. I could see clearly that, if I stayed I would end up in prison and suffer for a cause for which I had no sympathy. I decided to move to the UK where I had a friend - a Scotsman who had lived in South Africa for a while. Of course I really wanted to go to San Francisco but I had no connections there and anyway I heard that the hippy revolution had started in Britain also and there was going to be a "Love-in" in Hyde Park in London.

I spent the next few years in the UK being a hippy, living in communes, taking lots of drugs - mostly LSD - and experimenting with many varieties of sex. It was fun at first but I eventually realized that the party was over. The hippy scene had deteriorated into a horrible nightmare. Heroin had become the drug of choice. The love and joy had disappeared. LSD started giving me bad "trips" and I wondered if I was going insane. I watched my friends become addicted to heroine which they used to treat their depression and dull their mental pain. Fortunately I did not like heroine and turned to God for help - but that's a whole nother story.

Here are some other peoples' takes on the Summer of Love.

The truth about the Summer of Love by Daniel Finkelstein:

Why do we call it the Summer of Love?

On April 5, 1967, in a converted firehouse on Waller Street, San Francisco, a press conference was held, called by assorted members of the hippy scene in the bohemian district of Haight-Ashbury. And they announced their intention to form a Council for a Summer of Love. The title stuck.

The origin of the name is significant. For this summer we are celebrating, if that’s the right word, the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love. And the tendency to see this term as the description of an era, rather than of a discreet series of events in a small district in one city, is strong. Does this mistake matter? Yes, because it is a symbol of something bigger – the way in which both Left and Right overestimate the Sixties counterculture. The 40th anniversary, while everybody is printing their cut-out-and-keep guide to the Sgt. Pepper’s album cover, is as good a moment as any to challenge this.

[...]

Haight’s Summer of Love wasn’t even cool. Here’s the verdict of George Harrison, who visited in early August: “You know, I went to Haight-Ashbury expecting it to be this brilliant place, and it was just full of horrible, spotty, dropout kids on drugs.” Far from making him, in Timothy Leary’s phrase, want to “turn on, tune in, drop out”, Harrison vowed to stop using LSD.

Free love: Was there a price to pay? by Brian Alexander

The sexual repercussions of the Summer of Love still reverberate today.

The lingering image of the Summer of Love has been one of bare-breasted flower children making love in patchouli-scented crash pads, sharing their food, their money and their partners.

The real story is more complex.

Many problems have been glossed over in the psychedelic, Jefferson Airplane, “make love, not war” sheen the era has received, not least of which was the soaring rate of sexually transmitted diseases. There was a price for all that free love. From 1964 through 1968, the rates of syphilis and gonorrhea in California rose 165 percent, according to published reports.

“There was a lot of drug use, group sex, communal sex,” says Dr. David Smith, who founded the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic with $500 of his own money. “It would be an understatement to say there was a spike in STDs. That’s like saying a hurricane is a strong wind.”

Clinic doctors would regularly visit local communes to track sexual partners of infected people.

“Well, Bill had sex with John, and John had sex with Cindy,” explains Smith. “So we often said, ‘Well, let’s just bring in a gallon of penicillin and inject everybody.’”

Smith sums up his feelings about how the scene degenerated from carefree experimentation into a disease-ridden mess: “We went from idealism to despair.”

[...]

Abortion was another issue that erupted during Summer of Love. By the end of the summer, many women, some of them young teenagers, needed treatment for botched abortions. Though then-governor Ronald Reagan signed a liberalized abortion law in June of 1967, trips to Tijuana, Mexico, for back-alley procedures were common. Smith’s clinic even treated Big Brother and the Holding Company singer Janis Joplin for a mishandled Mexican abortion. She became a benefactor of the clinic.

Such experiences with abortions gone bad helped lead some states to further liberalize their abortion laws until 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, a ruling that still divides Americans.

The Summer of Drugs by Ted Nugent:

Forty years ago hordes of stoned, dirty, stinky hippies converged on San Francisco to "turn on, tune in, and drop out," which was the calling card of LSD proponent Timothy Leary. Turned off by the work ethic and productive American Dream values of their parents, hippies instead opted for a cowardly, irresponsible lifestyle of random sex, life-destroying drugs and mostly soulless rock music that flourished in San Francisco.

The Summer of Drugs climaxed with the Monterey Pop Festival which included some truly virtuoso musical talents such as Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin, both of whom would be dead a couple of years later due to drug abuse. Other musical geniuses such as Jim Morrison and Mama Cass would also be dead due to drugs within a few short years. The bodies of chemical-infested, brain-dead liberal deniers continue to stack up like cordwood.

[...]

The 1960s, a generation that wanted to hold hands, give peace a chance, smoke dope and change the world, changed it all right: for the worse. America is still suffering the horrible consequences of hippies who thought utopia could be found in joints and intentional disconnect.

A quick study of social statistics before and after the 1960s is quite telling. The rising rates of divorce, high school drop outs, drug use, abortion, sexual diseases and crime, not to mention the exponential expansion of government and taxes, is dramatic. The "if it feels good, do it" lifestyle born of the 1960s has proved to be destructive and deadly.

So now, 40 years later, there are actually people who want to celebrate the anniversary of the Summer of Drugs. Hippies are once again descending on ultra-liberal San Francisco--a city that once wanted to give shopping carts to the homeless--to celebrate and try to remember their dopey days of youth when so many of their musical heroes and friends long ago assumed room temperature by "partying" themselves to death. Nice.

And millions of people of my generation are permanently trapped in their pie-in-the-sky Marxist/John Lennonism and cannot see that their wishful thinking is no substitute for serious thought and responsible behavior. The worst legacy of the Summer of Love is that many of these people went on to become teachers and introduced their deluded fantasies to our children.

Gotham vs Mayberry

I was born and raised in a small town and lived in small towns in South Africa for the first two decades of my life. Then I went to live in London. For the next 35 years I lived in big cities. 25 of those years were spent in San Francisco till I moved to this farm in the middle of nowhere in Oregon about 4 years ago. I sometimes miss city life - for about a minute or two.

I miss the opera, symphony and ballet. I miss being able to go to world-class restaurants and eat great food. I miss the free opera and symphony concerts in the parks. I miss the book stores and the intellectual stimulation and I miss people-watching and seeing the tourists having fun.

But, as I said, this nostalgia only lasts for a minute or two because then I begin to remember the things that drove me away from the city. I don't miss the traffic jams, the crowds, the noise, the pollution and the constant dog-eat-dog competition to survive.

I especially don't miss the "alone in a crowd" feeling that I always had in the city or the unease and the constantly looking over one's shoulder when walking at night lest a predator be lurking in the dark. I can live without the feeling of being prey; without that always present potential for hostility.

However I must confess that I probably would not have been able to live in the boonies before the Internet came along. Without the Internet, I would feel stifled and isolated out here. Sure it's charming to watch reruns of "The Andy Griffith Show" where Gomer and Festus could spend half a day arguing over some trivial detail of small-town life but, in reality, that could get pretty tedious.

If I did not have the Internet as a contrast to the uneventful life that I live in the sticks, I'd probably be fairly frustrated. I'm not saying that I don't enjoy our little local dramas but, after a morning spent talking about livestock with my neighboring fellow farmers, it's nice to be able to go on-line and read Victor David Hanson.

Also thank goodness for the Internet when it comes to shopping. The pickings are slim in the mall or at Wal-Mart's Supercenter in the nearest big town. I'm not a big consumer but there are a few things that I like that are not available here. Fortunately I can buy them on the Internet.

Life in the boonies is not boring if you prefer the company of the birds and the bees to the two-faced phonies (or worse - thugs and gangsters) of the city. Something exciting doesn't happen everyday in the boonies but it's not boring.

Why - only yesterday we had a drama here on the farm. One of our new guinea-fowls gave us quite a shock. I had noticed over the past few days that the smaller of the two guinea-cocks had been ostracized by the bigger cock and the three hens. Unlike regular chickens, guinea-fowl flock. The chickens will roam alone all over the meadow but the guinea-fowl stick together in a tight pack while foraging.

Well, the little cock kept being left behind by the rest of the guineas. He would get lost in the forest by himself and call pitifully for his fellow guineas. Yesterday he did not come home to roost when all the other fowl did. Andy set out to find him and came back to report that the little guinea-cock had committed suicide.

Actually he may not have deliberately killed himself. What had happened is that he had caught his head in the terrible native blackberry brambles that we have here and had struggled so much and become so frightened that he had pooped his intestines right out of his anus. There he lay with his guts between his legs stone-cold dead.

Now nothing as weird as that happens in the city.