Summer Travels with Flat Ryan

Yesterday, the Engineering Geek and I--and Flat Ryan-- got up at dark o'clock in the morning so that we could be on the road at the crack of dawn. We needed to be north of Capitan, NM by 9 AM for the Western Rally for the Constitution, which was put together very quickly at the behest of people from the Western US who did not want to travel to Guilford Courthouse National Park in Greensboro, NC.

The New Mexico Rally was to have been at the Fort Stanton State Monument, but the state government wanted much paperwork and would only give the go-ahead a few days ahead of the event, so it was held on private land north of Capitan, in the Lincoln National Forest--which is Smokey the Bear Country.

The EG and I, along with several others from NMPA, attended the all-day armed rally in order to represent our organization and to hear speakers that included constitutional sheriffs, former Congressman Steve Pierce, and others discuss Article I Sections 8-9 of the Constitution, and the current government's gross overstepping of bounds, and possible solutions including the Patrick Henry Caucus leader's concept of returning control to the states.

Here are pictures on the way down and at the rally:





We started in the dark, but shortly after sunrise, we were on NM 41 heading from Willard to Corona. Here we are very near the gEOGRAPHIC Center of New Mexico, though we didn't stop at the ranch that holds the marker. Heading east, we can see the northeastern corner of Chupadera mesa to the right, and the Gallinas Mts. to the left.







This is a one of the famous New Mexico roadside tables that marked the lonely state and US highways long before interstate rest areas became fancy. This one was build by the CCC during the depression, and you can see the trademark stone steps in the forground. The way to the bathroom at these roadside tables was a set of steps over the barbed wire fence, leading to the nearest cover.





The old trading post and drugstore in Corona, New Mexico, just inside Lincoln County, at the intersection of New Mexico 41 and US 54.
Located in the beautiful setting, Corona is the gateway to Billy the Kid country, but a sleepy little town miles from nowhere none-the-less.





Looking west toward the Gallinas Mts. that NM 41 brought us across, you'd never know that anything was once here, but . . .

This is the location of the old Greathouse Stage Station and Tavern, where in November 1880, Billy the Kid and two companions were surrounded by a Sheriff's Posse. In an attempt to arrange the famouse outlaw's surrender, Sheriff Deputy James Carlisle was accidently shot and killed. William "Billy the Kid" Bonney escaped unharmed.

At the Rally for the Constitution, Bob Wright, Patriot, exhorts the crowd on the meaning of a constitutional state militia, while a very good country dance band waits to play a number behind.

In the background to the east are the Capitan Mts., although Capitan itself is to the southwest of this location.

The Rally was interesting, and fomer congressman Steve Pierce seems to have become less conservative and more libertarian/ constitutionalist since his defeat last election. He is running again this election, and was the only national level candidate from New Mexico to speak. Our ranch is located in the same district, so we will have to decide whether to vote for him. It's more promising than it was in 2008 when he ran for Heather Wilson's Senate seat.

Most of the speakers didn't say a whole lot new, but a radio guy from Oregon, who was live-streaming the event on the internet, was one of the first people I have heard in the broad patriot movement get up and discuss the real issue in big-picture terms: Collectivism vs. Individualism, he announced, and proceeded to describe what that means for us philosophically and practically.

And although a spattering of rain did send away some of the New Mexicans who had gathered, the rest of us rather enjoyed the cooling effect of the afternoon monsoon rain.

Ayekha? Where Are You?

"Walking hand-in-hand upon the Mountain,

Weighted down by lumber and a knife,

Abraham remembers Sarah's laughter,

And for a moment, he fears for Isaac's life.

But then he shudders with the wind,

And fills his head with faith,

And struggles for a different point of view.

As he reaches deep inside, to find the handle to that flame--

"Abraham!" G-d screams, "Where are you?"

--Rabbi Joe Black, "Ayeka"

from Leave a Little Bit Undone, 1999

Today is the new moon, and as the sun sets, we enter Rosh Chodesh Elul, the beginning of the month preceding the Holy Days, when we stand before the Eternal and listen to the question put to us--Ayekha? Where are you?

As human beings, endowed with reason and with choice, it is our obligation to discover the principles by which our lives can be lived, and to walk in their light. And because we may make errors of knowledge and errors of choice, we are also obligated to ask ourselves: "Where are you?"

As the summer days' heat yields to the cool winds of evening at this time of year, it seems that the season provokes a dream or a thought that makes me pause, to begin to ask this question. This year there was no dream, no vision of fog and cloud, but one of those "pass this on" e-mails that go around the internet from time to time, that gave me pause. And tonight, the question is not only an individual one, but one that many of us in the Liberty Movement might ask ourselves:

After this year or more of petitioning for redress, of watching our federal government pass legislation that violates our liberty on the most basic level; a year or more of being dismissed and sneered at by the media, and ignored and disrespected by our non-representing representatives--where are we? Do we still adhere to the principles that lit the flame of liberty in our hearts, that caused us to carry signs at the tea parties, and write and make phone calls to our representatives? Or have we given way to frustration and anger because we have experienced defeat after defeat after defeat? And are we willing to turn our backs on our founding principles in order to gain the momentary satisfaction of action that rises from our anger and our pain?

In the stages of social movements, now is the place where we find ourselves at the moment of maximum danger; the place where we are tempted to give up on our principles and act out of despair or violence. But just as the night seems all the darker just before the dawn, so we are also at the time just before our Liberty movement experiences a regeneration of purpose; a renewal of hope and determination that can take us though the crisis to come and into the future beyond.

Being here now, is the time to recall our principles and act on them with determination, and to be the watchman for the morning, calling upon those with us to remember them too. And this is the spirit in which I wish to critique that chain e-mail that came to my desktop this morning.

It was sent by a leader in the local patriot movement, and I do not know the origin of it before it came to him. It was a little scenario intended to divide "us" from "them" by characterizing the "them" in the most ridiculous terms. It was also intended to create a bandwagon of very narrow dimensions in that even some of the readers would become the enemy, and one in which the jumpers-on can drink the strong brew of anger and violent ideation made acceptable with a laugh. And though it purported to be a factual story, in my estimation it is very unlikely to be true. Here is the story:

If you don't know God, don't make stupid remarks!!!!!!

A United States Marine was taking some college courses
between assignments. He had completed 20 missions in Iraq
and Afghanistan . One of the courses had a professor who
was an avowed atheist, and a member of the ACLU.
One day the professor shocked the class when he came in.
He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "GOD, if you are real, then
I want you to knock me off this platform... I'll give you exactly 15 min."
The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes
went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am GOD, I'm still waiting."
It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got
out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him;
knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.
The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently.
The other students were shocked and stunned, and sat there
looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to,
noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked,
"What in the world is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"
The Marine calmly replied,
"God was too busy today protecting America 's
soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid
stuff and act like an idiot. So He sent me."
The classroom erupted in cheers!
THIS IS GOOD, KEEP IT GOING!

This story is no literary masterpiece, and I could go through it line by line, pointing out the logical fallacies, and the contemptuous assumptions within. However, there is a larger point to be made, and a bigger question to be asked: What does this piece tell us about those patriots who would agree with this action? Where are they? Where are we?

I did e-mail the patriot leader who sent this to me, and asked him if he condoned the action described above. He replied that he did. I wrote a longer e-mail back telling him why I disagree, and why the thing concerned me. I don't know what he will reply--and though I left the door open for rapproachment, I know that any reply could be defensive or even offensive, because my critique targeted some cherished falsehoods held by certain members of the Liberty movement, and further, urged a consideration of the story in the light of our bedrock principles of liberty--Individual Rights and the Non-INITIATION of Force Principle (NIP).

With respect to these principles, this story is one of failing.

The Marine--a member of a uniformed service who has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States--initiated force against a civilian who was exercising his freedom of speech. If this story had been true we would have seen it trumpeted in the media, because the marine would have been arrested, handed over to the CO of his duty station, and made an example of at Captain's Mast. For a military member in uniform to violate the rights of a civilian is not only a dishonor to the uniform, it is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). When a person becomes a member of the military, he signs away certain of his civil rights for the duration of the time he wears the uniform. This includes his right to freedom of speech, his liberty (he must obey lawful orders), and his right to a civilian jury trial. IMHO, not only would a marine with such an extensive service record be unlikely to be stupid enough to take the action described in the story, but the person with whom this story originated is ignorant of the role and the honor of our men and women in uniform.

But of ultimate concern to me is what this story is intended to teach those who agree with it. It encourages the idea that it is a good thing to violate the rights of another person, to initiate force against him, because you disagree with his ideas. IOW, it encourages the violation of the rights of those who think differently, who have a different political point of view, and who are exercising their freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. This story encourages the sympathetic reader to deny the principle of Individual Rights, and subtly suggests that if you disagree with that, you are not a member of the club.

If one is defend to Constitution of the United States, one must accept and defend the Principle of Individual Rights upon which that document is based. This means that every person is endowed with the right to life, liberty and property, including atheists and members of the ACLU, and all others with whom one might disagree. The Constitution is a compact by which we agree to not only refuse to initiate force against other individuals, but by which we agree to cede the right to retaliate against one who initiates force against us to the courts unless self-defense is immediately required.

Unlike progressives--for whom the end justifies the means--defenders of liberty cannot use the Alinsky tactics of Rules for Radicals. Liberty cannot be gained by the violation of it; we cannot force people to be free. We cannot violate individual rights in order to restore them.

Further, anyone who has read the MIAC report, or studied the methods of the marxists and progressives currently in power know that they need us to violate our principles, to initiate force, and to give them an excuse to take what little of our liberty is left. They may fabricate such an incident (this is a false-flag), but we should not hand it to them. Surely any one of us is free to tell and distribute such a story as this, but given it's obvious appeal to anger and chauvinism, is it wise to do so? How does it encourage those in the liberty movement who have not been educated in the Principles of Liberty to think about our bedrock principles--Individual Rights and the Non-Initiation of Force Principle?

Where are we? What are we encouraging people to think about and do?

These questions are paramount, especially for those who would be leaders in the Cause of Liberty. We cannot afford to encourage disrespect of our principles within our own movement, and at the same time fight that disrespect from without. We must cling to our principles with the utmost integrity, and be just in our evaluation of those with whom we disagree, and even those who have made themselves the opponents of Liberty.

Every time I receive and e-mail that says: "This is good. Keep it going," it is important that I ask myself: Where am I on this? What principles does this e-mail support? Which of my principles does it violate? What kind of behavior does it encourage? Does it encourage justice and honor? What about respect for the rights of others, even those with whom I disagree? Or does it encourage injustice and the use of force?

I submit that we must be absolutely unyielding in upholding these principles of Liberty, and we must stand firm in encouraging those with whom we work to do so as well. This means respect for the individual rights of every person, in every circumstance, no matter how much we disagree with his ideas or the way he expresses them. And we must not suffer fools who encourage the violation of these principles gladly. We cannot associate ourselves with them, or encourage them lest we lose our stand. In this way we will be worthy of the name "Patriot", and we will uphold the heritage of those great men who pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

When Conservatives Fail to Defend Individual Rights

"Man's rights may not be left at the unilateral decision, the arbitrary
choice, the irrationality, the whim of another man."
-- Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government", in

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

There is a certain segment of the US population that wants to have its cake and eat it, too.
No, I am not talking about progressives, and no, I am not talking about economics. I am talking about Conservatives, and I am talking about their ceaseless mission to make us all Christian, even if that means limiting our liberty.

I have not been paying much attention to politics lately--just a bit of my time here or there--because we are closing on the ranch we are investing in, and that is of greater value to me than fruitless arguing over which criminals ought to replace the current criminals in Washington City.

However, I am not so tied up with contracts, settlement statements, and amendments that I failed to notice that a California Federal Appeals Court struck down Proposition 8--a California referendum that banned civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

Though I had ignored this decision on Facebook and in blogs, it was discussed briefly at the Bernalillo County Libertarian Party social hour the other night, and I saw news items about it as well. Today though, I received two different links on my Facebook Wall, both of which surprised me in their absolute religious certainty and fundamental ignorance of the concept of rights. One, by the fiery Danny Gonzales is so typically over the top, that it practically begged a response. I did not give him one, because it would have been "pearls before swine", to quote the wrong testament.

Much of the commentary by the defense of marriage people focuses on the fact that the California Proposition 8 was approved by a majority of voters.

Yes, a majority of Californians did vote to deprive a certain class of people of their unalienable right to contract. And so what? The operative word here is "vote". A right is not granted by any state, constitution or court. It cannot be voted into place or voted away. A right is inherent in the nature of the individual, and must therefore apply to any individual in any situation. If only certain individuals can exercise a particular action freely, that action becomes a privilege--it is no longer being treated as a right. The American philosophy on rights, derived from the English Enlightenment, was clearly stated by Jefferson at the inception of the United States, the only nation in the world that was established on the foundation of the natural rights of man. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Although the United States Constitution does not mention these rights in its body, it was written to create a government that was limited in scope to the protection of them, and the anti-Federalists also insisted upon adding the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments, in order to make sure that the federal government did not overstep its bounds and begin to violate the life, liberty and property of individual Americans.

For this reason, the federal government cannot establish any law, procedure or regulation that deprives any individual of his rights for any reason. Like all states that entered the Union after the ratification of the Constitution and as a condition of entry, California had to agree to uphold the Bill of Rights for its citizens, and in fact the California State Constitution has a rather elaborate Declaration of Rights, which is Article I of its Constitution, in which the state promises to uphold the equal protection clause from the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Therefore, no state can establish a law that violates the rights of any individual citizen.

In all states of the Union, the rights of every person must be upheld, and are unalienable. That is they cannot be violated by a majority, and neither can any individual willingly give up those rights. And the Bill of Rights, in Amendments 9 & 10, makes it clear that the rights of the individual are unenummerated, whereas the duties of the government are limited.

These are the reasons that the judgment rendered by the US Court of Appeals with respect to the California Proposition 8 is correct. Californians cannot vote away the rights of any individual to life, liberty and property (which includes the right to contract) as a matter of civil law.

The conservatives will and do argue that gays contracting a marriage is a violation of their religious law. That may very well be, but certain Californians may not impose their religious law upon others, any more than any other American may do so. The Bill of Rights is quite clear that government "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Californians whose religions forbid gay marriages are certainly within their rights to morally condemn it, and their churches cannot be forced to conduct such marriage ceremonies, but neither can they interfere with the contractual rights of others who disagree and wish to establish such a relationship civilly or within another church.

For a state to forbid a certain individuals as a class to a contract that is sanctioned for others is discrimination, and establishes that contract as a privilege for some, and violates the liberty of everyone else. It cannot stand. There are two solutions: that the state sanctions that contract for all, or that the state does not sanction the contract for anyone.

Historically, the interference of the state into marriage began following the emancipation of slaves, and the requirement that couples seek the permission of the state to contract a marriage was established in order to prevent interracial marriages. Prior to that, marriage was the province of religion, and especially in the south, many poor people established common-law marriages without benefit of clergy. Although there were social costs to this kind of arrangement, there were no tax costs or benefits applied to marriage.

Free people should not accept the requirement to ask permission of the state to marry, any more than we should expect the state to interfere in any portion of our lives. Liberty means the ability to live our own lives and pursue our own happiness without interference from anybody, so long as we do not violate the life, liberty or property rights of another person.

As I said above, there are two possible solutions to this problem: that the state treat all contracts of marriage or partnership equally, or that the state stays out of marriage entirely. In order to protect everyone's liberty, I believe that the second proposition is far better. Hand marriage over to the religious congregations or to secular marriage establishments, each of which could establish it's own rules as to who may or may not marry together in that particular establishment. Some religions and/or secular establishments would require membership for a marriage to take place under its auspices, some would not. Some would refuse to marry people based on lifestyle, and others based on sexual orientation. Some would require pre-marital counseling, and others would require compatibility tests. All such establishments would be free to make their own rules; and all individuals who did not like their rules would be free to find or create an establishment that would accept them. Everyone would have an equal right to contract in the eyes of the law.

Conservatives who claim to support liberty, but at the same time insist on depriving others of their liberty for religious reasons are either confused about what liberty is, or they believe that they can have liberty while depriving others of its blessings. In religious terms, holiness cannot be achieved by force; an individual must choose it or it is meaningless.

It is time to recognize that the United States is not a Christian nation, that there is a difference between the fact that Christianity is the religion of a majority of Americans, and the establishment of the religion Christianity as the state-approved religion that is incumbent on all citizens to follow. The United States has no established religion and all Americans are free to practice their own religion, or none at all, without government sanction or preferment. But free exercise of one's religion can in no way be interpeted as using force against another person. One does not exercise a right by violating it.

Therefore, I believe the latest ruling from California is a good one. Not because it is popular. Not because a majority of people want it to be that way. But because it upholds the right of every individual to equal justice under the law.

In speaking of conservatives, Ayn Rand said this:

". . .if one wishes to gauge the relationship of freedom to the goals of today’s intellectuals, one may gauge it by the fact that the concept of individual rights is evaded, distorted, perverted and seldom discussed, most conspicuously seldom by the so-called “conservatives." --Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights", in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Conservatives want to have their liberty and eat it, too. They tend to promote their own right to economic freedom but wish to deprive others of personal liberty even in such intimate parts of their lives as whom they love and wish to marry. This is hypocrisy of the tallest order. It is neither holy nor good. Everyone must be free to choose or no one is, and in such a state of slavery, no one's actions can be moral.

Ayn Rand Refuses a Sanction: Truth, Tolerance and the Level of Discourse

The manner in which discourse is conducted in the media and in public speeches and statements made by politicians today is beyond apalling. The insinuations, excuses, lack of respect for the listeners--or in the case of interviews--the person being interviewed, has become the norm rather than the exception, and is expected and even approved of by members of the media, the intellectuals, political hacks, politicians and even some members of the general public. I have discussed this before, even back to the beginning of this blog, and I have wondered about how we had come to this pass, and what values we have learned and taught that would have allowed such a deterioration of discourse, turning it into a kind of anti-discourse in which ideas are never exchanged.

Today, I as I was catching up on my blogging reading list, I came upon a post that featured a segment of Milton Friedman on Phil Donahue in 1979. I had forgotten what a sharp man he was, and how he used humor to his advantage. So I watched the whole show--which can be found in 5 segments starting here. From there I found the whole of a Phil Donahue show that featured Ayn Rand in the same year. Oddly, though I had seen the Milton Friedman episode when it was broadcast, I had missed the Ayn Rand episode of Donahue. My boyfriend at the time told me about it, knowing how much I admired her. I remembered what he said, and it pertains to my topic as well shall see.

Miss Rand had much to say in this interview, and as I watched, I was struck by two things. The first was how much time Phil Donahue spent actually listening to the answers to questions he posed, and how, in his discussion, he endeavored to be fair to the guest, even when it was clear that he disagreed with the ideas presented. This used to be the norm, and now I never experience it--not even with respect to some talk radio hosts that I believe have a point. The other was the very serious way Miss Rand listened to Donahue, often hearing and repeating verbatum his words in order to illustrate her own ideas as well as his. This was a hallmark of Miss Rand's interactions. She was serious about ideas, and would underscore a questioner's words in such a way that he--and everyone else listening--had to realize what he had actually said and what it meant. Often, she would look at the speaker with a shrug, a smile and an intense look that said that she had heard what the speaker was actually saying, but did the speaker hear it?

On this level alone, the episode was refreshing--a blast from a kinder, more focused past, but at the end of the third segment something occurred that got me thinking once again about the nature of discourse, and I got it, finally; the "it" being the value that has been lost in order to allow the ugly sniping that has replaced discourse in the present.

What happened is that a young woman got up to ask a question. But rather than simply ask a question, she added a preamble in which she said:

Questioner: Fifteen years ago I was impressed with your books and I sort of felt that your philosophy was proper. Today, however, I am more educated and I find that if a company . . ."
Rand: This is what I don't answer--
Donahue: Well, wait a minute, you haven't heard the question yet.
(Audience chatter, laughter)
Rand: She's already estimated her position, in my work, incidently displaying the quality of her brain. If today she says she is more educated--
Questioner (interrupting): No, no, no! I am more educated now than I was 15 years ago when I was in high school, before I went to college--
Rand (talking over Questioner): --then, uh, I'm not interested in your biography (unintelligible) wrong context.
Questioner (over Rand):--and read the newspapers.
Donahue: Let her make her point! Let her make her point!
(Audience murmers, talking).
Rand: (gestures and bows, gives floor to Questioner)
Questioner: It's very basic. When a company is allowed to do what it wants to do like ITT, you wind up with Nazi Germany and ITT doing whatever it well please, and any other company in the United States doing the same damn thing! Conglomerates are not monopolies--they can do whatever they want. ITT owns everything from baking companies to telephone companies to munition plants. I mean, I really think that's wrong! And I really think--
Donahue (getting between Rand and Questioner): Miss Rand thinks it's wrong, too. But she thinks it's not a government force that's going to correct the problem.
Questioner: I don't think government force is going to correct the problem either, but she's not--
Donahue: But she says that if we just back away and let the invisible hand to work, and let competition and free enterprise happen according to it's own inclinations--
Questioner: I understand that--
Donahue: We're not going to have abuse--and abuse and evil will fall of its own weight.
Questioner: I don't believe that.


The above can be seen here, starting at 9:53. Watch Rand's expressions and body language closely.



The encounter continues at the beginning of segment 4:

Questioner: I can't believe that because money is power--
(Audience applause, whistles, clapping)
Questioner: --the more power you have.
Donahue: Can we encourage you to make a contribution to this expression.
Rand: I will not answer anyone who is impolite. But, to show you --
(Audience expresses disapproval)
Donahue: She wasn't impolite--
Rand: I do not sanction impoliteness and I am not the victim of hippies. But--
Donahue: Hippies?
(Audience laughing, talking).
Rand:--that's where it started. That the--in the dropping of politeness and the manners.
Donahue: You're equating someone who disagrees with you with impoliteness. That's not fair.
Rand: No, no. If you didn't--
(Audience laughter, calls and applause)
Rand: If you didn't interrupt me, I would have demonstrated what I mean. I will assure you that I am not evading the question. If anyone else wants to ask the same question politely, I'll be delighted to answer.
Donahue: There was nothing impolite! . . . This is the kind of woman we are trying to attract to our television audience.
Rand: Fine. Teach her some manners--I--
Donahue: But Miss Rand--
Rand: I will now repeat what she said: "I used to agree with you, but now that I'm more educated. . ." What does that mean.
Donahue: Well that means that she now has a different view. There's nothing personal about that observation. Don't be so sensitive!"
Rand: I am going to be. I intend to be!
{BREAK}
Rand (after answering another question): --But I want to answer the preceding question. Doesn't anybody want to ask it politely?
Donahue: Uh, well yes.. Ah, sure... ah--your question. . . your question wants this audience to agree with your assessment of the questioner, and I don't think they will. That's the problem.
(Audience applause)
Rand: All of them? Uh--then why do they want to listen to me at all?
Donahue: Alright, does anybody want to. . .? Alright . . . over here. Could you please stand?
Commentor: I' suprised that somebody with the intelligence of Miss Rand could so emotional in her approach.
(Audience applause).
Rand (pointing): I can answer you. I didn't come here to be judged. I came here to answer questions. A question asked in the following form: "I used to agree with you but now that I'm more educated, I don't." It is an insult--
Donahue: All right--
Rand:--which I cannot sanction.
Donahue: All right.
Rand: I am not interested in the woman's history. She didn't have to begin it that way--
Donahue: All right.
Rand:--and that's what I want to register my protest--
Donahue: How do we keep ITT from developing too much . . .
(Here Donahue goes on to ask, and Rand answers the question)


Here is the next half, on segment four--from the beginning to about 4:05.


Here is Ayn Rand's point: that the woman was impolite and that she (Rand) would not therefore sanction the question. That is, Rand refused to ignore the context in which the question was asked, and the assumption that the woman was making, in order to ask the question.

Donahue here misunderstands Rand's intent, and interprets it to mean that Rand will not answer because she disagrees with the Questioner.

What I noticed is that, despite what has been said about Rand by those who hate her, she is completely genuine in her verbal and facial expressions. She lets anyone watching know that she is being direct, but that she is not angry. She is refusing to answer this woman on principle. Twice, this woman begins her statements by talking down to Rand, a context that Rand then refuses to ignore. The first time the woman speaks, she implies that uneducated, naive people are the only ones who would consider Rand's ideas proper. The second time, she says: "It's very basic . . ." Both of these statements essentially talk down to Rand and her ideas. Despite what Donahue says, they are personal, and change the tone of the conversation. If Rand had ignored the insult and answered the question, she would have given her sanction to the lack of good manners--and good rhetorical skills--of her questioner. Rand would not do that. Had she had the desire, Rand would have made an excellent teacher for young people. She would not have let them get away with such attempts at one-upmanship, however unconscious or subtle, and the kids would have respected her for it.

To understand what Rand was doing in the above interview, I believe that one must understand that Ayn Rand was far more concerned with truth than she was with tolerance. That she was not prepared to allow a lie or an evasion (and this was more likely the latter on the part of the Questioner) for the sake of being nice, or appearing to turn the other cheek. Ayn Rand believed that sacrifice--the act of ignoring or destroying something or someone of greater value to oneself for the sake of a lesser value--is evil. She was a very consistent practitioner of justice, which is the opposite of such sacrifice. Ayn Rand was also consistent in that she would not suffer fools gladly. She understood that tolerance of the bad is destruction of the good; that tolerance of foolishness means ignorance of wisdom; that tolerance of evasion is the destruction of truth. It was her contention that sanctioning a non-value drives out value, and that this is what is evil about such tolerance. Ayn Rand was definitely not PC.

And this brings me to the issue of how reasonable discourse has been driven out in favor of empty rhetoric, lies and insults. As I watched these YouTube segments, I saw that the value that underlies political correctness is unlimited tolerance. People have many rationales for tolerating being lied to and being continuously insulted by those who wish to replace argument with empty words. One that the collectivists have much exploited, is the desire people have to appear to be tolerant. The leftists use this through continual accusations of racism and other calumny applied to anyone who is not tolerant of the course state of discourse today. And the reluctance people have to being labeled as intolerant--whether it is true or not--makes such labeling an easy way to control people who desire the good opinion of others, no matter who they are and what they believe. You may have noticed that Rand does not care about the good opinion of others unless she respects them.

Tolerance has been treated as a primary virtue: that is a virtue that must be practiced without limits. And among people of good will, a certain amount of tolerance for differences in beliefs and practices is necessary, as well as is tolerance for differences in taste and preferences. It is also important to have some tolerance for the errors of knowlege that people of good will can make, so that we can get along with one another. But tolerance cannot be a primary virtue.

In engineering, tolerance is defined as: "the leeway for deviation from a standard"; and more precisely as "the permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension." These definitions imply that there are limits to tolerance, and indeed an engineer is very careful to calculate the limits to a deviation, because beyond those limits a structure could not stand.

And so it is within the values that we place on behavior and interactions among human beings. To tolerate benign errors of knowlege, differences in beliefs and practices that do not affect the rights of another is within the limits. But should we tolerate destruction of property? The enslavement of women? Murder? Genocide? Is it virtuous to tolerate the culture and beliefs of those who wish to destroy our life, liberty and property? Many of us would respond viscerally with a resounding "NO!"

And yet, what is it we do when we believe that it is proper to treat with murderers and psychopathic and genocidal leaders such as the president of Iran? When we allow such a man to speak to our Congress and to students in our unversities? When we applaud him because it is "nice" to do so? It is wrong to do so because tolerance of evil does mean the destruction of the good. We cannot have it both ways. By tolerating evil, we destroy the good. This is the opposite of justice, no matter how often the leftists speak of justice in social terms.

So it is with the issue of discourse. By giving our sanction to liars, tyrants and murderers, we participate in the decline of polite and reasoned discourse and the discussion of ideas over personalities. This may not seem like a huge concession when compared to murder and genocide. But discourse strikes at the heart of all political interactions, and by driving out truth and justice tbrough tolerance of lies and deceit, we are helping to build the on-ramp to the destruction of our Constitution and our liberty.

Many of us, present company included, have often given our sanction to to the undeserving because we wanted to appear to be tolerant, to be considered "nice". And we have to stop it right now. Being nice is not the equivalent of being good. Tolerance is not a primary virtue, and it is meaningless without limits. What should our children say to us if we allow their freedom and liberty to be destroyed because we wished to appear to be tolerant and nice?

G-d forbid that I should ever need to have that conversation with my kids.

Ayn Rand understood this, and that is why she refused to sanction the woman's question. For the late '60's and '70's saw the resurgence of the loss of justice, the loss of truth in argument, and the beginning of unlimited tolerance practiced out of fear of the bad opinions of others and a desire to appear "nice."

Ayn Rand understood what was happening--did you catch her comment about hippies?--and that is why she stood her ground, firmly. By refusing to tolerate the young woman's question, and persistently pursuing the issue, she taught that audience--and all of us--that tolerance is no substitute for truth and justice.

Justice cannot survive when we bow down to unlimited tolerance.

Watching this episode has brought me an understanding of how we have come to a place where we are afraid to assert the goodness of our values, and why we tolerate behavior that seeks to destroy them. It has made me reflect on my premises and reject those that have brought me to self-censorship for the sake of not offending the indefensible. I have learned something about what to listen for, and how to respond. Certainly, I am not Ayn Rand. My expression of the same ideas will be different, but the goal will be the same: To practice the refusal to sanction an unreasonable assertion by providing a reasonable response and to call attention to the context of such a substitute for discourse, and to the purpose behind the speaker's strategy, which is usually to shift the ground of the conversation away from reason. (In the case of the Questioner above, I believe it was unconscious. Rand reminds me of some of the older European Jewish women I know, who practice both the straighforwardness and manners of a different time). This will require a more conscious attention to not only what is being said, but to the context in which it is presented.

Thank you, Ayn Rand.

Nobody's Right If Everybody's Wrong

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

--Buffalo Springfield, For What It's Worth

When I was 10 years old there were battle lines being drawn. We had a politicians war, unrest in the streets, the sexual revolution--I'm glad I was too young to be in the front lines for that one--and students shot down on campus at Kent State. And sometimes when battle lines are being drawn, when sides are chosen up, and when "paranoia strikes deep" it is easy to forget the principles for which we stand because we tend to be "sayin' Hurray for our side."

It happened then.

And now, 40 years later, it's happening again. Intensity is growing, anger is deepening, and we know that choosing a side is not voluntary. If we don't choose, the line will cross us. And in this kind of climate, it is very easy to forget the principles for which we stand in order to keep saying "Hurray for our side."

A small incident in Albuquerque last week illustrates very well that "nobody's right when everybody's wrong." And how those conditions can create a climate where the temptation is to not think, but to "ditto-head" all the way to the end of the Republic.

This morning I received one of those "I won't back down" e-mails. The message was that something happened here last week, and if I wasn't angry about it, why I didn't belong on the mailer's mailing list. But as I read the story and watched the video it became apparent that this was not exactly a case of cop bashing in innocent protestors. But neither was it a case of innocent cop being harrassed by Weathermen Underground wanna be's. Although I think the protestors were more in the wrong, the cop was not exactly a model of mature rectitude and professionalism.

But I am getting ahead of myself. Judge for yourself.

What Happened:

There was a heavy metal concert, Rob Zombies, at the new Hard Rock Cafe Albuquerque, which is not in Albuquerque at all; it is at the Casino on the Isleta Pueblo. Apparently, some Christians disapprove greatly of metal, or maybe of any rock music, because a small group of them appeared with signs and an attitude and stood a few yards away from the concert goers who were standing in line waiting to be admitted. The Christians, not content to carry signs that told the crowd they were going to hell, were also telling the people in the crowd that they were going to hell. Loudly. And did I say with attitude? The crowd was getting angry and shouting a few choice words back at the Christians. Enter a young deputy sheriff, J. Goff. He told the Christians that this was private property and that they would have to leave. The Christians began to argue with him, claiming a non-existent right to free speech and presence on private property. The deputy persisted. The Christians continued to both incite the concert-going crowd and argued with the deputy. With attitude. The concert goers began to look as if they were getting ready to throw things at the Christians. The deputy told them once again it was private property and that they had to leave "right now" or they'd be arrested. As the Christians finally began to leave, video-taping all the way, they also began to tell Deputy Goff that he need to repent or go to hell. Goff--apparently channeling attitude from the Christians--began to mock them saying that he was an unbeliever and that there is no god. He also incited the concert crowd further, asking them if they wanted the Christians to leave or stay.

There was Attitude. There was Unprofessional Behavior. Christians were violating private property rights. A deputy was acting like a snotty teen-ager.

Nobody was right. Everybody was hot.

You can read the story here. (The local paper didn't cover it, though there was a discussion on one of the local afternoon drive talk-shows). There is a You-Tube video associated with the story and that can also be found here. The video was taken by the Christians and in this case, sadly, shows the depths of their ignorance of individual rights. And even more sadly shows the shallowness of the deputy's understanding of his job.

But given the powder keg our nation is sitting on now, we have to keep our heads, and our principles. This is not a free-state vs. police state issue. This is an issue of private property rights and the initiation of force against concert goers by inconsiderate Christians. And I believe that in the present incendiary climate, we cannot get hot under the collar, we cannot be spoiling for a fight while ignoring our principles.

So when the guy who e-mailed me and a dozen or so others, saying:

"There's so going to be a fight" and " if this doesn't make you really, really mad then let me know so I can remove you from my address book",

I sat down and wrote a letter back to the whole list.

Because I refuse to be required to agree with the emotion of the day, and allow it to cloud reasoned defense of principle. Because we can't afford to start a fight over anything less than bedrock principles. And even then, we cannot afford to throw the first punch.

Here is what I wrote:

Given what was said in the WND article--and shown in the video--both the deputy and the protestors were in the wrong. The protestors do not have a constitutional right to trespass on private property for any purpose, but must have the permission of the property owners in order to protest. Clearly they did not, as they had not purchased tickets, and the law was called in to enforce the property rights of the property owners. Being Christian does not excuse one from the responsibility to respect the right to life, liberty and property of others.

However, the deputy needed to handle the situation in a professional manner, and his personal beliefs should have had nothing to do with the situation at all. It really should not have mattered why the protestors were violating the private property rights of the Hard Rock Cafe, only that they were.

It is clear from the beginning of the video that the protestors did not respect the private property of the Hard Rock Cafe, and they had not purchased the right to be on that property in the form of a ticket. Such a purchase is a contract, which requires the ticket-holder to follow the policies of the business that owns the property. The protestors were not only violating property rights; they were also inciting the crowd attending the concert, and the concert goers were responding, and the situation was escalating. In such situations, one particularly nasty gesture or statement could begin a riot. Crowds are not rational. The protestors were not only endangering the concert goers, they were endangering themselves. In such situations, a peace officer has the obligation to get the offenders--in this case the protestors--off the property as quickly as possible. When the protestors heard that they were invading the private property of another, they had the obligation to obey the peace officer or face arrest.

However, by injecting his personal beliefs into the situation, this deputy needlessly increased the tension and insulted all citizens (those who were present and those who were not) who pay his salary. Those citizens have a right to complain about the situation. At the same time, the citizens can request a particular disciplinary action, but they cannot demand it. Peace Officers, like any other laborer, sell their time to the employer--in this case, Bernalillo County--via contract. That contract will generally refer to departmental policies for discipline. The department and Bernalillo County are therefore obligated by contract to follow those policies, which may or may not allow for the deputy to be fired. Those conditions may (and probably do) have contingencies for the type of offense, as well as the record of the officer. The officer also most likely has the right to a disciplinary hearing, and legal representation, as well as arbitration, should he believe that the discipline received is not according to contract.

Overall, this situation was very different from the situation in Michigan in which Christian protestors were handing out copies of a bible to Muslims on a public street. There, the Christians were on public property, and they were not initiating force against anyone; the crowds there were able to refuse the interaction, which is their right.

As Patriots who respect the Constitution, it is incumbent upon all of us to respect the rights of others, to behave in a civil manner and to respect the law that protects our rights. As human beings, it is incumbent upon us to treat other individuals with good will, and to abjure the initiation of force against them and to respect their liberty to disagree with us. Being a Christian does not entitle anyone to violate property rights and incite a crowd. To say otherwise is to sanction mob rule, which is the opposite of the Republic based upon individual rights and the Rule of Law that has been bequeathed to us. All of us must respect the rights of others, including their right to disagree with us peacefully. We must be very careful to exemplify in every way the values that we claim to represent.

Since I am not a Christian, I cannot say what Christian ethics would require in this situation. But I can say that Christians do the Patriot movement no favors if they refuse to respect the rights of individuals who do not subscribe to their sect's particular beliefs. It is clear from the World Net Daily story that some Christians believe that Heavy Metal music is sinful, and others don't.

As a mother, though, I would say that good manners and polite discussion and persuasive arguments are more likely to get the attention of those one disagrees with than rudeness and force. Or as my first-grade teacher used to say, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." We all get passionate from time to time, but that does not mean it is the best method of persuasion in every time and place.


So many people claim that they stand for liberty, for individual rights, and for the American values. But so many of them appear to have no idea what liberty is, or what individual rights mean. They believe that it is permissible to violate the rights of others because they have "the truth" and therefore can force it upon everyone else. They believe that their rights supercede the rights of others--that rights do not belong equally to all individuals.

These Christian kids were not only initiating force against the property owner, they also videotaped their lack of respect for the rights of the concert goers, their lack of good manners, and they also revealed their embarrassing lack of fundamental knowlege about freedom and liberty. They have the right to free speech--absolutely. But the property owners are not slaves. They are not required to provide protesters with a platform to make that speech.

The concert goers have a right to choose their activity and engage in it without being verbally assaulted without recourse. They paid for the privilege of enjoying that right on the private property of the Hard Rock Cafe. And because of that payment, the Hard Rock Cafe was obligated to remove protestors.

"Paranoia strikes deep,

And into your life it will creep.

It begins when you're always afraid . . ."

If we are to restore the Republic, we must be zealous defenders of liberty. We cannot create paranoia within ourselves by convincing ourselves that peace officers are against us, without considering the parameters of the law. We must stand on the principle that every individual enjoys that same liberty that we expect, even if we do not like him or agree with his activities and choices. We have no right to initiate force against him. And we must know and practice the core principles that created our liberty.

Liberty Song Saturday: America--The Song

There are these Saturdays that never wake up . . . yesterday, it was a monsoon Saturday--hard rain, fog and then drizzle gently falling. And I took a full Shabbat. So, maybe I should change my theme to Liberty Song on a Sundae this week . . . (Geek Alert: You have to have read Lucifer's Hammer to get that one!).

This week, no parody but a real, honest to goodness country song. I was born in northern Illinois, but grew up south. I can speak Chicago--though that's getting harder all the time!--but I can also speak Harrisburg, and Cairo and Kentucky. The soft, drawn out vowels that are not quite southern. I can speak country, because I grew up in McLean County Illinois, surrounded by Mennonite farmers, German and Irish railroaders, and Jewish merchants; Americans all.

This song was inspired by Ellis Island. And sometimes, I swear I forget the trouble they went through, not so long ago, so I could be born on these shores and have the liberty to make the stand I am making. Although I doubt they understood the philosophy of natural rights, or knew the words of the Declaration, they understood that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness would be theirs if they left everything they knew, to take that dreadful trip in steerage across the Atlantic:

". . . but the weariness and worry must have faded from their eyes,
to behold that lady arising in the sky,
Oh, can't you hear them cry:

America, I hear you calling me,
Sweet land of Liberty,
I'm on my way!
America, beckoning with open arms,
I long to feel the warmth of Freedom's flame!
G-d had given hope a name,
America!"

This week--America: The Song by Dustin James




Dustin says:
"This song has no political agenda. It does not scold the way we are or lament the way we were. It is a simple tribute to a remarkable country by one deeply grateful citizen. . . "

I hope those ones who came before me, they who took a risk so that I could have freedom, will be proud of what we do to claim the liberty they risked everything to obtain.

More on Mixed Premises: Part II--Common Themes

This is part II of a discussion piece related to my Sunday July 18 blog entry entitled Mixed Premises: Glenn Beck, Collective Guilt and "the Jews". Yesterday, in More on Mixed Premises: Part I--Challenging Assumptions, I outlined the differences between Judaism and Christianity that I believe are the most important and most commonly misunderstood, so that they contribute to Jews and Christians in dialogue talking past one another. In today's post, I am going to discuss three common themes in the comments on the Mixed Premises post, found both here and on my Facebook link to it.

Part II: Discussion of Common Themes in Comments

כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמיים, סופה להתקיים; ושאינה לשם שמיים, אין סופה להתקיים

"All controversy waged in the name of heaven shall be of lasting worth,

but that not in the name of heaven shall not be of lasting worth."

--Pirkei Avot--The Ethics of the Fathers--5:20

My blog post on Sunday discussed Glenn Beck's anti-semmitic comment, an aside the appeared to assign collective responsibility for the death of Jesus to "the Jews." I used the example of this blunder--and I do think it was a blunder--to illustrate what happens when one does not examine, question and discard premises that are in conflict with one's bed-rock principles and values. Before I go further in this discussion, I want to emphasize two things:

1. I believe this is exactly the case for Glenn Beck. I don't think this clearly anti-semitic statement, made as an aside, can be used to claim that Glenn Beck is an anti-semite. I don't believe that the comment is a thoughtful expression of his position on the charge of deicide against "the Jews". Rather, as I wrote in the first essay on this issue, I think that his statement was the result of an unquestioned premise that he probably absorbed with his mother's milk, an unnamed collectivism that he applies reflexively and only in this particular context of his Christian religion; the context of his literal interpretation of the trial and death of Jesus as taken from a conflated version of the gospel accounts. Since I only know the man from what I have heard him say over the period of four years, I could be wrong. However, I do listen closely to what people say on a variety of issues and I don't think I am wrong in this instance.

2. I believe that this discussion is "for the sake of heaven." That is, it creates the opportunity for all who participate--including me--to examine our own premises, to question them, and to determine if any should be discarded in favor of the premises that are more consistent with our most deeply held values and principles. Therefore the discussion should remain on the level of ideas and concepts, and it should not deteriorate into attacks on persons, name-calling and other manifestations of sinat channam--causeless hatred.

Given that, I also believe that Glenn Beck has moved on with respect to this issue. That is, he is either unaware or unwilling to make himself aware of the real cause of the controversy, which has nothing to do with the politics of the people who tried to call him on it. I am sorry for him for this, because had he not been a celebrity, had he not conflated those who hate him with those who wished to see the matter corrected, he could have learned something important, something that would have made him a better man. "Who is wise?" asks Ben Zoma, "He who learns from all men."

We can learn from one another, even if Beck misses the opportunity.

The Discussion Its-Own-Self:

I. The most common response I received to my concern about Beck's remark, while varying in wording, went something like this: "I watched the whole video and I did not get that Beck made any mistake other than the use of a bad metaphor.

Response: The fact that this was the bad use of an example was part of my point. That it was so obvious to Beck--and to many of his listeners--that the charge of deicide is a fact, is my entire point. That Beck did not clarify this specific example, indicates that he did not see it as the problem. Rather, the problem to him was the entire idea of "collective salvation." And I agree that this is a problem, however, his lack of clarification made it possible for listeners to hear the remark either way. As I said, it was the fact that Beck approved Pat Gray's interpretation that "the Jews wanted him [Jesus] executed" on the Friday morning radio show that made the whole thing much more offensive. He never did complete the thought that began with "I'm saying that in a perverted world--", demonstrating that the remark was not important, that he never did understand the reason that many of us objected to the original remark. And this in turn demonstrates that Beck is indeed operating from mixed premises. That was the thesis that I was discussing.

II. The second most common objection to my essay was to my statement that Glenn Beck does not know the history behind the charge of deicide, and therefore he does not get how serious an issue it is to most American Jews. I was told by several people that they believed he does know the history, because he objects to National Socialism as a philosophy that leads inevitably to mass murder.

Response: I agree that 1) National Socialism (and all forms of collectivism) leads inevitably to mass murder; and 2) that Glenn Beck knows that history. However, I do NOT believe that he knows the extreme nature of the deicide accusation and the 1500 years of horror that it created. If he got that, he would certainly have hastened to clarify his example for his audience, if not immediately on the TV program, then certainly on the Friday program. Of course, I could posit the much more serious charge that Glenn does know the history of the deicide charge and refused to clarify in order to spare himself and other Christians a vicarious discomfort for the past, but that would mean that Glenn is willing to fudge on the truth. I certainly hope that is not the problem, although his defensiveness on the matter may indicate that it is.

I have noticed at various levels of Jewish-Christian dialogue that some Christians become as uncomfortable with a discussion of the truth about how Christian institutions treated Jews in the past, as if they were personally responsible for it in the here and now. Of course, that is also an indication of the very mixed premises we have been discussing. That is, if they feel guilty, they accept the premise that collective responsibility and guilt is correct. The answer is not that Jews should stop telling the truth about the history, but that those people who feel inappropriate guilt should discard such collectivist ideas. They can no more be guilty of persecution of Jews in the past, than Jews now can be guilty of the death of Jesus.

III. The third most common statement goes something like: "We all know that it was not the Jews that killed Jesus, it was the Romans that did it." Some people also stated that the Jews present in the crowd on the day of Jesus' death were responsible, even if present day Jews are not.

Response:

The short response to both of these statements is: Why is it so important to assign blame for the death of Jesus? Even if the gospel accounts are literally true in every detail, who killed Jesus should not matter to Christians because of their particular theology of the meaning of his death. The answer of a Christian should be: "We killed Jesus by our sins." Which illustrates that Christianity is itself mired in the premise of collective guilt and punishment, which seriously undermines the competing Christian claim of personal responsibility. There are the mixed premises again. And this is an issue that only Christians can sort out for themselves.

I am not a scholar of Christian scripture, but my knowledge of Jewish law and custom makes me doubt that the story is literally true. In fact, I did take a course in Christian scripture in which we used "The Synopsis of the Four Gospels" which lays out the same story from each gospel side by side in four columns on the page. It is quite interesting how many differences there are in the four accounts. My professor (a Catholic priest) taught that these accounts each had a larger theological point and should not be read literally. I realize that this will anger the literalists in Christianity, but there it is.

I don't think "the Romans" put Jesus to death any more than did "the Jews." Roman soldiers under the command of a Roman governor did. Most of the Roman soldiers doing occupation duty in Judea at that time were freed slaves from the wars with Gaul, and they probably had no clue about why they were executing Jews. Jesus was just one of the many thousands of Jews crucified during the time 'the Senate and People of Rome' governed Judea. Most Romans probably had little to no idea about where Judea was and why Rome was governing it. Even those in the Senate who did, probably thought of Judea as an abstraction and nothing more.

More to the point, no matter how much the governor supposedly abjured his own responsibility--"I did what the ubiquitous they told me to do"--it was his, not theirs. If he gave the order, he--and he alone--was responsible. With great power comes great responsibility. I doubt the literal truth of that portion of the story as well, because it would be a rare Roman who would care much about justice towards barbarians, and the history of Pontius Pilate indicates that he was a brutal governor to the point where even the Roman Senate--hardly the sensitive types--thought it was excessive and removed him from office.
So even if you take the gospel accounts to be true, an individualistic assessment of responsibility would require you to assign the blame to Pontius Pilate, and the over all responsibility to those who gave him power, the Roman Senate.

However, this belated excuse that "the Jews" are cleared from blame because "the Romans" killed Jesus, is in itself an evasion. Perhaps, the evasion takes place because present day Christians become very uncomfortable with the actions of previous Christians, which is also an error of assigning collective responsibility (see Response to Point I above). Or perhaps it is an evasion of the bloody history of Christianity, which was just as inevitable as the bloody history of any other religion or state that reasons from a collectivist philosophy or from mixed premises. But as an individualist, I do not assign responsibility to present-day Christians for the past sins of Christians against Jews or anyone else.

I think that blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus was just an excuse to rob, plunder, rape and kill the strangers living among the Christians of Europe. It has the same root as the excuses that Che used to kill dissenters in Cuba, or that Stalin used to starve the Kulaks off their land. That collectivism leads to this bloody end over and over again in history cannot be disputed. That is why I agree with Glenn Beck that collectivism is evil.

And this is why I wish that Beck would open his eyes and see past the accusers to the accusation itself, and acknowledge his mixed premises. He has a lot of influence, which gives him great power. And with great power comes great responsibility.