A Word on the Tragedy

I just wanted to take a moment here to address the recent horror in Connecticut. There is not much anyone can say authoritatively about it but I did not feel like I could ignore it. For those of you that know what happened, (which is I’m sure most of you) there is no reason to go into the gruesome details. For those who do not, suffice it to say that there has been another school shooting, sadly not the first, but involving someone shooting up a class of very, very young children. This is a hard thing to come to terms with and my first thought was that I wish my nieces could be home schooled. I would even offer to take on the job myself to get it done but that’s not being realistic. I am the last person anyone, even my sister, would want to leave their children with. I would spend half the day ranting about why everything in their textbooks is wrong and then the other half we would probably spend drinking coke, eating junk food and watching really weird foreign movies. Not a pretty sight. Still, due to the quality of public education as well as my growing paranoia over the safety my little almond-eyed sweeties, I really wish they could get out of the system. Alas, it is not my decision to make and (despite my please to Santa Claus) all mankind does not bend to my will. Yet. Christmas is just around the corner…

Anyway, enough with the babbling. This is a tragedy, a horror, a nightmare and the grief of others is not something I find it easy to deal with. I will try to stick to some simple, basic points that seem to come up on such occasions. First, I will deal with an easy issue. Anytime something like this happens you can count down the seconds until someone brings up gun control. That is, in a word, “stupid”. Some countries have even more widespread gun ownership than America and they have less shootings (like Switzerland) while other countries have totally banned all guns and seen gun crime increase (like the UK) because -shock of shocks- lawbreakers tend not to care about the law. Recently there was another shooting in which the shooter was using a stolen firearm. Gee, if only we had thought to pass a law against stealing! Oh, wait… Now, I am not trying to diminish the pain of someone being shot. By no means. I have been shot, I know exactly what it feels like to have a hole blown through your body so I don’t want to hear any smart remarks about me being ignorant of what a gun can do. I do. Furthermore, I don’t think you need to experience that to know that it is not pleasant or that some things are worse. Given the choice of being shot or stabbed, I have never known anyone who picked “stabbed”.

Anyone who would do something like this will find a way to make it happen, if he has to steal a gun, buy one on the black market or use some more creative means of taking the lives of others. That whole issue is simple for me. The only thing I really don’t understand is why so many of these types kill themselves afterward. Why not just off yourself in the first place and save a whole lot of time and aggravation? It reminds me of a line from a poem that someone (let’s say a doctor) told me once and has stuck in my head ever since, “Good creatures, do you love your lives / and have you ears for sense? / Here is a knife like other knives, / that cost me eighteen pence. / I need but stick it in my heart / and down will come the sky, / and earth’s foundations will depart / and all you folk will die.” It is nearly impossible to stop someone who is bent on destroying themselves and almost as difficult to stop those intent on harming others. There is only so much that “we” can do but, as the increasing number of these tragedies shows, I think it is obvious we could do more. In the aftermath, everyone wonders “why” and “how” such things could happen. I am no more an oracle than anyone else, but one thing does come to mind. Perhaps it is the sort of thing one can only come up with if one has a first-hand grasp of mental disorders. In a word: empathy.

Everyone, I don’t care who you are, at times has violent thoughts. And I don’t think it matters what music you listen to, what movies you watch or what video games you play. Why I ask myself how someone could do such a thing, all I can come up with is that we are, as a people, becoming increasingly incapable of truly understanding the pain of others at all. Is it because our society as a whole is becoming ever more impersonal? Is it because things like charity, kindness and compassion are increasingly becoming a duty of the government rather than an individual responsibility? I don’t know, it may all play a part in the larger trend but I am fairly certain that no one could do what this person did if they had even the slightest capacity to understand the pain felt by others. We are becoming more self-absorbed while at the same time less and less officially “selfish”. But that cannot be the only problem. The problem, I think, is bigger but still simple, and that is God.

When you see the horror, the pure evil that was done, such actions (to my mind at least, and I know people will call it backward and superstitious) can only be attributed to the Devil. We have become an increasingly godless society and one in which we do not even agree on the most basic difference between “right” and “wrong”. In fact, it seems we are increasingly convinced that such distinctions do not even exist. Obviously, I am not saying that this would not have happened if the murderer had gone to Church or anything like that, but it is just as obvious that this was someone who did not fear divine judgment or have any respect for the law of God, including “Thou shalt not kill”. But, it is bigger than that. I know many people will be upset that I go back to this issue, but I cannot help it, the fact is that we in the United States, legal, law-abiding citizens, have murdered 50 million babies since 1973 and each one of those lives was just as precious and just as innocent as the children murdered in Connecticut. The only difference seems to be that if you kill your own children soon enough we have no problem with it but a dead child is a dead child and by condoning one while condemning the other, it seems to me, is sending an extremely mixed message about the value we place on human life.

Our prayers and condolences go out to the victims of this atrocity. Words cannot express the heartache. My parents know what it is like to bury a child (three in our family) and that is a pain that never goes away and that no one should ever have to experience. All I can do is pray for them and take some comfort in the fact that I know, in my heart, these children are with the angels and the one who took their lives is in torment and will be forever. It is a great tragedy and further proof, to me at least, that we need God. As the Good Book says, quite simply, “God is love”. We need to stop turning our backs on it and embrace it, the only alternative is suffering.

Mad Analysis: Mosley and the "Far-Right"

It was on this day in 1980 that the washed up would-be dictator of Britain, Sir Oswald Mosley, Bt. died at his home in northern France. I doubt many in the United Kingdom today think of Mosley, but it is significant that, when they do, they will describe Mosley as the leader of the British Union of Fascists (which he was) usually with the preface of “the far-right” which is about as untrue as one could possibly be. However, he was, and is still remembered today, as a “bad guy” and the bad guys are always of the “far-right” in the modern media. However, if one were to take an honest look at the background of Oswald Mosley and the things he advocated for throughout his life, one would see that, rather than “far-right”, there was very little right-wing about him at all, in any degree. Just consider some of his positions and ask yourself if a politician holding these same positions today would be more at home on the political right or the left. You be the judge. Here are some of the political positions of Oswald Mosley:

• Opposed the use of military force in Ireland (the Black and Tans).
• Was a member of the British socialist Fabian Society.
• Supported the nationalization of British industries.
• Opposed free trade and supported protectionism; high tariffs on imported goods.
• Supported more power for government, a government controlled economy in accordance with Keynesian economics (and those extra powers would not go to Parliament which he favored having less control over policy).
• Supported the creation of a unitary European super-state.
• Opposed large scale immigration to Great Britain from the Commonwealth.
• Quit the Conservative Party in favor of the Labour Party and was finally forced out of the Labour Party because his proposals were too radically socialist.
• Opposed pretty much every war that came along in his lifetime.
• Called the House of Lords an unworkable anachronism and wanted it abolished.

Now, I will freely admit that I would have opposed the actions of the Black and Tans in Ireland as well but it was a policy more popular with the right than the left at that time. Opposition to large-scale immigration is also something that, these days, neither the Tories or Labour really seem to oppose. So, on the whole, I do not see how anyone could look at the entirety of the career of Oswald Mosley and conclude that he was a “far-right” political figure. Oh, but wait! He was anti-Semitic! That means he was a racist and the racists are all on the right. Right? Well, today, in mainstream politics anyway, no one wants to say anything that is clearly anti-anyone but I can say that, from what I have seen, hostility to Israel seems to be much more prevalent on the left than on the right. Take from that what you will though, there may not be very strong opinions even among Jews on the subject of Israel since, in my country anyway, the right is the most vocal in their support of Israel but most Jews vote consistently in favor of the left. Yet, broadly speaking, everywhere I look today, it is the left that wants to determine things based on race and the right which wants to treat everyone the same regardless of race with no special penalties or benefits for anyone.

I am sure, because it has happened any time I say that people like Hitler or Mussolini (who may or not have been one thing or the other on the political spectrum) were at least products of the political left, that someone will say that I am being terribly unfair, I am completely wrong and being utterly offensive. Well, I am afraid I may not be offensive enough so let me throw in another firebomb; there are plenty of people in British political life today that I would consider far worse than Oswald Mosley and I would even prefer someone like Mosley over a number of people on the political scene today in Great Britain and some other Commonwealth countries. Why do I say that? Because, frankly, Mosley does not scare me as much as some other people do. Part of that is because of something I would fundamentally disagree with Mosley on.

A fundamental difference I would have with Mosley is that he believed in ideology (as described by Pat Buchanan) as a “political religion” and that his brand of fascism would solve all of the problems of British society. I do not believe that to be the case by any means. A country built simply on ideology will have very shallow roots and, in my opinion, would not last long. For myself, certainly in the case of the United Kingdom, the key, the foundation, the most important thing (outside religion -though they are, of course, linked) is the monarchy and the fact of the matter is that Mosley was not against the monarchy. If that position changed later in life for him, I don’t know for certain but I have never heard that it did. On the subject of “Loyalty to the Crown” Mosley wrote that, “Whatever is good in the past we both respect and venerate. This is why, throughout the policy of the movement, we respect and venerate the Crown. Here, at least, is an institution, worn smooth with the frictions of long ago; which in difficult experience has been proven effective and has averted from this Empire many a calamity. We believe that, under the same impartial dispensation, the greatest constitutional change in British history may yet be peacefully achieved”. He meant, by that, of course the conversion of Great Britain from a parliamentary democracy to a fascist state.

Because of the last line of that statement alone, I could never be an enthusiastic supporter of Mosley (in addition to opposing just about every economic policy he ever came up with or his infatuation with European unity) because, it seems to me at least, that his support for the monarchy was somewhat conditional. I think his way of looking at the monarchy was vastly different from my own. However, he was not opposed to it and even gave it some praise whereas there are some in the British government and on the political scene today that totally oppose it and make no secret of the fact that they would like to see it destroyed and in my view those people are far more dangerous than someone like Mosley ever could have been. After all, as was proven in Italy, no matter how bad things might become, as long as the monarch remains, there is always the ability, with the proper support, to get rid of someone like Mosley and reverse any disastrous policies he might implement. A country, any country, has to have something at its core that all else is built upon; one thing, no matter how seemingly nominal it might be, that everyone must be united in upholding. Ideologies will come and go, can cause varying degrees of harm or benefit, but as long as the monarchy remains there is always hope, there is always a chance, there is always another alternative.

Mosley may have had some frightening ideas but he never held any real political power. There are plenty in Great Britain and other Commonwealth realms today with ideas just as frightening and even more so who actually do. And if you are going to call Mosley and his comrades people of the “far-right” just consider that Mosley himself, in an interview with the American conservative William F. Buckley Jr. said, “…it’s all nonsense to believe that fascism was ever a conservative movement or a movement of the right…” His words, not mine.

Mad Analysis: My Problems with the Libertarians

Ever since the Presidential election in the United States, everyone, particularly on the “right” has been trying to explain it and diagnose the reason behind the defeat of the hapless Mitt Romney. And, if one is expecting to find people behaving with reason and common sense, it certainly calls for a thorough investigation. After all, never in the lifetime of most voters has a President been reelected when unemployment, the debt, the deficit, gas prices, food prices and general cost of living have been so high. Looking at the numbers, one would think that the Republicans could have nominated anyone and still coasted to an easy and overwhelming victory. Since Obama has been President, more people are unemployed and more people are having a harder time making a living if they do have work. So why did he win? More people voted for him than Romney. Simple. But why? Blacks voted almost uniformly for the President, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for him as did single women in spite of the fact that these groups have suffered the most during his first term. If one expects to find a rational reason for that, you are going to be searching for quite a while. The reason, it seems, was because Romney seemed worse. True, unemployment is worse among these groups but because of that they still voted for more of the same because more of these people are receiving government assistance and were told that Romney was going to cut off the government gravy train (which of course he could not do so long as the Democrats hold the Senate but, again, common sense has nothing to do with this). Some have blamed the Republican message while others have blamed the ability of Republicans to “sell” their message. Balderdash!

Some eminent Republicans have said that Hispanics are the key and that the GOP should embrace the idea of amnesty (with border security) to win over Latino voters. They are wasting their time. In the first place, this has been tried before and the left will never go along with increasing border security. However, if Latinos were most concerned with this they would have been more reluctant in voting for Obama considering that he has deported far more illegal aliens in one term in office than George W. Bush did in two. And why are these Republicans talking about attracting Latino voters rather than Blacks? Probably because (aside from considering them a lost cause due to the overwhelming loyalty Blacks have for the Democrat Party) this would reveal the stupidity of their position. If they think amnesty will win them long-term Latino support they should look to Black Americans and remember that it was the Republican Party that abolished slavery in this country and yet Blacks still do not support Republicans and so we have the ironic picture of the first African-American President of the United States belonging to the same political party as the late President of the Confederacy. Did Blacks defect to the right when Herman Cain was running for the top job? Did they get behind George W. Bush for appointing the first Black Secretary of State or did they embrace the Republican Party for George H. W. Bush appointing only the second Black Supreme Court Justice? Every time, “no” and if they think they will no longer be seen as the “racist” party by embracing amnesty they have another thing coming.

The left, of course, says what they say after every Republican defeat which is that the conservatives could win if they just dropped all that conservatism. What I find most entertaining though is the extent to which the Libertarians are saying the exact same thing. Since the election I have seen a parade of people from the Cato Institute and Reason magazine blaming the GOP defeat on their clinging to traditional moral values, immigration control and the “war” on drugs. Meanwhile, they are cheering the fact that Colorado voted to legalize marijuana and that several states voted to legalize gay “marriage”. Further, they bemoan the fact that conservatives will not drop their opposition to abortion and gay “marriage” in order to join with the libertarian throngs in saving the country from economic ruin brought about by the big-spending left. So, in other words, give up your deeply held beliefs to help foster our agenda. Again, much like the Democrats. Aside from the condescending nature of such an argument, one problem with that is the priorities of these libertarians. The argument also betrays the extent to which even the good ideas of libertarianism are often overtaken in their own minds by their most ridiculous arguments.

Can't you leave me alone BEFORE you take over?

Gay “marriage” is a good example. If the libertarians really believed in what they claim, they would not be championing so-called “marriage equality” but rather for an end to all government involvement in marriage at all and an end to all benefits for married people be they gay, straight, polygamists or any other perverse combination. This really pains me because, as the national debt becomes higher and higher (and it is already to the point that I doubt it could ever be reasonably expected to be paid off) the libertarian argument is increasingly more likely to be the only possible solution. Yet, they want conservatives to abandon their values and come to them in order to unite on fiscal issues rather than themselves giving ground on narcotics and homosexuality to save the national economy. It seems ridiculous to the point of hilarity to me that it is the traditional right that must make concessions rather than the libertarians on the social issues because each side agrees that the current economic trend leads to disaster but by libertarians refusing to compromise on their moral positions they act as though they think these are somehow as important as the fiscal crisis. Can they be serious? Countries will certainly go to ruin if they spend more than they earn but I have never heard of a country going to ruin because there was not enough sodomy, abortions or drug use going on.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson

Demographics do matter, partly because demographic change is permanent change. Laws, policies and regulations can all be repealed (though they seldom are) but once a population has changed it can never be changed back. This matters to the political race because the left has, for some time, controlled the culture, the media and the education system and have successfully branded the Republican Party as the party of racism and there is nothing the GOP can do at this point to “prove” they are not racists -and God knows they have tried. Take a look at the Bush cabinet or the last GOP convention which was essentially a parade of minorities, and women minorities better still. Because of the success of the left on this branding campaign, and because immigrants are more likely to depend on government benefits (as are single women -yes there is a pattern here) they tend to vote Democrat. Go down the list of ethnic groups; African-American, Hispanic-American, Jewish-American, Arab-American, Asian-American, Native-American: they all tend to vote Democrat. The Democrats realize this, which is why they oppose any effort to enforce immigration laws or secure the border. Rest assured, if Mexican-Americans voted the way Cuban-Americans have in the past, the Democrats would have built a border fence on our southern frontier to dwarf the Great Wall of China.

The left, the party of government dependency, therefore has always embraced the ideal of open borders because they know it means more and more people who will loyally vote Democrat no matter the circumstances. Here again though, I marvel at the libertarians of the Cato Institute and Reason and so on for making the same argument. Their belief in absolute individual liberty is such that they too want open borders even though this has resulted in more and more popular support for the very government programs these same libertarians claim to most oppose! But, unlike the conservatives of the GOP, they will never change because it is a matter of principle to them and they see no distinctions when it comes to their principles of the “self” above all. That is why, apparently, they see the fact that some states refuse to condone homosexuality as just as big a problem as the fact that the USA is $16 trillion in debt and almost half the population depends on the government to some degree. I will repeat, there is a great deal I agree with libertarians on even though I could never be a total one, mostly because, like most political groups, they would not have me even if I wanted to join them.

Legalize and regulate -even though they oppose regulation

Again, I think the libertarian ideal of a “wall of separation” between economy and state is rapidly becoming not just a better solution but the only possible solution. However, fundamentally, I could never be a total libertarian because I do have some attachment to my own people, I do regard tradition as important and, most fundamentally, because, like Thomas Hobbes, I think that if left totally to his own devices the life of man would be, “nasty, brutish and short”. I agree with them on most of their economic ideas, I certainly agree with them when it comes to the debt and the dollar and I totally agree with them when it comes to private property and their opposition to socialism and communism. But I cannot agree with them on everything and I cannot agree with their priorities. For example, they think all narcotics should be legal. Having seen the damage drugs can do to people (and not just the people who take them), that scares me a little but I see the merit of their argument. However, I would never, ever go along with legalizing drugs until the welfare state was abolished because I don’t want to be saddled with paying for the 24/7 care of a population of drug-addled wretches. I have never understood why the libertarians do not first devote themselves to abolishing the welfare state and THEN campaign to legalize drugs. Well, maybe I do, because a great deal of their support comes from pot smoking college kids. Similarly, why fight for “marriage equality” instead of getting the government out of marriage altogether which would result in the same thing anyway?

Another problem I have with them is national security. And, again, it is not that I disagree with their position as much as I disagree with their priorities. In most cases, I agree with them that the policy of interventionism has been a disaster but I could never adopt their position while they also adhere to the open borders policy. Right now, a major concern is the nuclear program of Iran. They don’t care if Iran gets the bomb but I do. However, I do specifically because of how open our borders already are. If Iran got the bomb right now there is still no way they could directly harm the United States. They have no missiles to stick it on that could reach America and they have no bombers that could get close to America without being shot down. But if we adopt the libertarian policy of open borders it would not be terribly difficult to get a “dirty bomb” into the country and wreak havoc. In fact, the whole “War on Terror” would never have been an issue if the USA had simply taken greater care about who is coming into the country and what they are doing while on American soil. None of these terrorist groups control any ballistic missiles, tank divisions or long range bombers. They can only attack America by getting inside and hijacking a plane or setting off a bomb. If America had real border security none of these terrorists could ever touch the United States at all. I have often been eager to tell the rest of the world to fight their own battles but I cannot go along with the libertarian position so long as they refuse to stop potential enemies overseas and at the same time refuse to allow the military to guard the borders at home.

You know, if you voted in a state that mattered...

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the issue of abortion, something I will never support nor even tolerate at all, period, no discussion. Not all libertarians support abortion (I know Judge Andrew Napolitano does not, God bless him -and I also salute him for having the courage to point out that FDR manipulated the US into World War II by provoking Japan -not a popular truth) but every major libertarian institution that I know of does and certainly the people at Reason and Cato I have seen on TV do. I understand why they do, because they believe in absolute individual rights and the absolute inviolability of the “self”. An individual woman has every right to an abortion if she wants one just as, in the libertarian view, she has every right to prostitute herself if she wants to. When it is all about “me” and a pregnancy would be detrimental to “my” happiness, abortion is perfectly acceptable. However, at the same time, this libertarian position puzzles me because they also claim to be all about individual responsibility (and I am certainly in favor of that -all the way). They say they want personal freedom and personal responsibility. However, abortion seems to me to be the total negation of that position.

Consider it like this: we live in a world where women have access to every variety of artificial birth control known to man (and the shrinking population to prove it). So, other than in the event of a rape (which are thankfully relatively rare in the United States) if a woman is impregnated it is because she made a decision and exercised her individual right to have “unprotected” sex or chose to do something that would interfere with her clear thinking (like getting drunk) and as a result made a bad decision and ended up getting pregnant. It does not seem at all ‘libertarian’ to me to then allow this woman a medical “bail out” from a situation she willingly got herself into. Of course, I also believe it is the murder of an innocent child but I’m assuming libertarians do not, otherwise they would apply their principles to the individual rights of the unborn child. But even from their own perspective, I do not see how supporting abortion is in keeping with their devotion to personal responsibility. But then, that half of the equation often seems to be neglected doesn’t it? They favor allowing drug abuse without first eliminating the welfare state that would force drug addicts to be responsible for their own actions and they support abortion even when rape is not a factor which allows people to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. To me, that just seems crazy. But, it would, being … The Mad Monarchist.

(Note: Libertarians may not leave angry messages in the comment box below telling me what a horrible person I am but please, whatever you do, don't click on the "libertarian" label below and read any of the other articles I have posted on the subject in support of various libertarian positions or it just might cause serious damage including brain injury to you. -MM)

Beware of the Mob

The protesters have been out in force lately. Recently we have seen an awful lot of this. The Arab Spring in North Africa and the Middle East, the riots in Greece, protest marches in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, the “Occupy” movement in the U.S. and Canada and protests in the U.K. about one thing or another. Monarchists should still remember the Prince of Wales having his car attacked in London, which was bad enough but he should thank God he wasn’t in France or his car might have been set on fire as opposed to having eggs thrown at it. There were even riots in China but the ones that got the most coverage were those aimed at the Japanese embassy which anyone with half a brain knows were state-approved riots (very little happens in the PRC that is not state-approved). Personally, whenever it comes to the “mob” taking to the streets I immediately become paranoid and hostile (okay, okay, *more* paranoid and hostile) and start wishing for a little police brutality. For all such complaints these days we really don’t see anything like the Peterloo Massacre anymore (those were the days…). What disturbs me though is the number of people (thankfully comparatively small) who otherwise appear to have some sense and yet sympathize with these raucous mobs.

It is usually safe to say that, for a monarchist, any sort of mob action usually means trouble. I don’t think anyone could make much of an argument from history of mobs restoring or strengthening monarchies. Usually it is quite dramatically the reverse. There are though, some people who I think are right on at least a few things who seem to be swept along by it, like how the “Occupy Wall street” demonstration, in New York at least, included a few libertarians railing about the “corporatism” of government being “in bed” with big business (and I can’t tell you how sick I am of that expression). Obviously, these people were not reflective of the majority of the group which was made up of Marxists, anarchists and the odd radical environmentalist. Some are taken in, but I fail to grasp how it is possible. In almost every case, these people are not exactly being subtle about where their true sympathies lay. Canadian-American commentator Steven Crowder went “undercover” at one of these protests, wearing a red shirt with the hammer and sickle symbol on it and he said the creepiest thing about his excursion was the number of people saying, “I love your shirt”.

Now, keeping in mind that communism has led to the deaths of about a hundred million people in the world (number one in the death toll by far) and ask yourself if anyone, monarchist or otherwise, would sympathize with a group that said the same things about someone with a swastika on their shirt? I doubt it. You can tell a great deal about these groups by how they present themselves. Consider the last time you saw a march/protest by organized labor. Take the recent teachers strike in Chicago for example; everyone was wearing red shirts. That is not an accident folks. At least one even had on one of those oh-so-chic Che Guevara t-shirts that all the hip young commies are wearing these days (which I’m sure they bought from some company that believes in ‘profit sharing’ so it’s totally cool a’right!). Does that seem like anything close to a pro-tradition crowd to anyone? Anyone at all? Turning to the news of marches and protests from Europe and I see a lot of red shirts on display there too. Again -not an accident. Although at least in Europe they are a little more honest about it; their socialists are not ashamed to call themselves socialists in most cases.

A couple of other things about these many protests should cause alarm amongst monarchists. First is the pervasiveness of those damn “Guy Fawkes” masks. Now, I have a rather more complicated view of Guy Fawkes than most people (I think it might have been an inside job and he was left ‘holding the fuse’) but still, these are not a group of people fighting against big, oppressive government. These are people who want the government to do MORE -not less. That doesn’t really fit in with narrative from the movie that popularized those masks (which didn’t make sense anyway, just for the record) but at the end of the day -listen up monarchists- according to official accounts these people are wearing the face of an attempted regicide. Given the above context, what monarchist would be okay with that? The second, and more blatant (at least being more recent, as in the last century as opposed to many) can be seen in Spain. It seems like every time I see a protest in Spain I see the mob carrying the flags of the former second Spanish republic. That would tend to tell me that these are not the “loyal opposition” types.

Do we need a history lesson? For those of you who don’t know, there have been two republics in Spanish history. The first came after the abdication of King Amedeo I, did not last long and was too disorganized to even cause much damage. Then, after the overthrow of King Alfonso XIII, Spain was treated to her second republic -a leftist, Soviet-backed nightmare that saw hordes of people massacred (particularly the religious). To put it in a way the mainstream might find more impressive, in the first few *months* that the second republic existed, more people were put to death than during all the *centuries* that the Spanish Inquisition was in full swing. Their war on religion, tradition and Spanish history so divided and radicalized the country that it came down to a gruesome civil war between the republicans on one side (backed by Stalin and international communist volunteers) and the nationalists on the other (backed by Mussolini and, to a lesser degree, Hitler). Then nationalist leader Francisco Franco was in charge for the rest of his life, and despite his popular image today (and you can check the numbers on this), his dictatorship was practically paradise compared to the orgy of violence that was the republic. It was only after the restoration of the monarchy that people in Spain gained the freedom to have idiotic protests aimed against the idiotic governments that they voted into office time and time again.

It is no exaggeration to say that the second Spanish republic was the darkest and most barbaric period in Spanish history. Yet, we see these idiot protesters carrying Spanish republican flags to all of their public temper-tantrums. This is a clear and unequivocal signal to monarchists. These people are not about order, tradition or upholding timeless values. These are people who have voted idiots into office who passed idiotic policies and now they don’t want to face up to the consequences of their actions. And for anyone who would still applaud them just out of shared hatred for who they are against, remember, the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. The western democracies believed that in World War II regarding Stalin and the result was the Cold War.

Beware of the mob.
They are not our friends.
Good things do not come from them.

Mad Analysis: Our Hypocritical Vice President

In the recent Vice Presidential debate, the moderator pointed out the historic nature of two Roman Catholics running for VP in the United States and followed this up by asking each of the candidates how their Catholic faith influences them on the issue of abortion. Congressman Paul Ryan, as most know, is pro-Life and opposes abortion while Vice President Joe Biden is pro-Choice and supports abortion being legal and readily available. Congressman Ryan said that he finds it impossible to separate your faith and your private life from your public life and that he believes abortion to be wrong both because his Church teaches that it is wrong but also because of, as he said, science and reason tell him life begins at conception and thus abortion is the taking of an innocent life. Joe Biden, on the other hand, answered that he believes you most certainly can separate your faith and private life from your public life. Biden said that he is a faithful, practicing Catholic and that he accepts the teaching of his Church that life begins at conception but that he still supports the legality of abortion because to do otherwise would be to impose his private religious views on the public at large. This, it should also be said, is the standard answer given by most Catholics in the Democratic Party which has in its platform the official position that abortion should be legal at all times, in all instances, for all people.

There is, however, a glaring, blatant problem with the position of Joe Biden and those like him. The problem is; why do these same Catholic politicians have no problem imposing their own moral views on the public at large on issues other than abortion? For example, Biden and many other Catholic Democrats have said over and over again that their support for a social safety net, for welfare programs, for higher taxes on the wealthy to support such programs aimed at benefiting the less fortunate all stem from their Catholic faith which teaches them to help the poor. So, why do they have no problem forcing, for example, certain people to pay more to the government to help the poor because of their faith but that they do have a problem with forcing people to either raise or give up for adoption a child they conceived? If a rich atheist does not believe in the morality of helping the poor, why does Biden force his Catholic belief in that regard on the wealthy atheist but he will not force his Catholic belief in the sanctity of life on an expectant mother? I presume that Biden also believes it is wrong to steal. The Church says it is wrong. So, why does he not call for the repeal of all laws against theft so as not to impose his view on the immorality of thievery on those people who may be communists or something, rejecting the very concept of ownership, who see nothing wrong with stealing?

Obviously, this is a position that makes no sense whatsoever. As some have also pointed out, the Obama-Biden administration obviously has no problem forcing religious institutions to cover artificial birth control in their healthcare plans even though Catholic institutions believe that the use of artificial birth control is immoral. In regards to the HHS mandate, Biden is supporting the use of government force to compel institutions to do something their faith and the faith he himself claims to hold says is wrong and immoral. The truth is, of course, that any government in existence passes laws and those laws apply to everyone, even those who may disagree with them. Democracy is no different, hence we have such terms as the “tyranny of the majority”. In the old days, the United States was somewhat limited in this regard because the country was a union of sovereign or at least semi-sovereign states. Many pro-Life Americans who see little hope in the complete criminalization of abortion or those who simply believe in the principle of states’ rights do not want the federal government to make abortion illegal across the whole country but simply wish that power to be returned to the states so that each state could decide for itself whether to permit abortion within its borders or not. Biden, and the rest of the pro-Choice Democrats, do not support this view. They want abortion to be legal in every state whether the people in each of the states like it or not. In other words, they support forcing their view on the goodness of abortion on those who believe it is wrong.

The same view holds true on a number of other issues as well. Congressman Ryan, made a limited statement in this direction during that very exchange, saying that the Romney-Ryan administration would prefer that the people decide on whether they want abortion to be legal or illegal rather than an unelected judge. This, of course, referred to the Democrats getting laws in individual states and across the whole country overturned by state supreme courts or the federal Supreme Court to legalize numerous things, including abortion. Finally, it is also evident that Biden is holding to a very blatant double-standard, as are those like him, because of their voting record. After all, if he truly believed abortion was wrong but did not wish to impose his views on others, he and those like him could simply abstain from voting on any legislation involving abortion. Personally, I would still think them cowardly for doing so, but that would allow their actions to match their words. President Obama voted “present” often enough in his brief career in the state and national legislatures. However, they do not. They vote in favor of abortion, not “no” and not “present” but a very clear and unequivocal “yes” to abortion. So, in effect, what Biden is saying is that he will not vote to impose a belief he holds on others but he will vote to impose a belief he claims NOT to hold on others.

Does that make sense to absolutely anyone? Can absolutely anyone say that is a clear and consistent position to hold? I think not. However, I am obviously not so morally developed as the Vice President as I could never believe that something is intrinsically evil and still cast a vote that would allow it to be carried out. So what do I know?

Mad Analysis: Politics Is Depressing

In the United States, the political contest has now entered the “serious” stage, we have seen both the Republican and Democrat conventions and they have together brought about a very definite emotional reaction in me. Unfortunately that reaction was depression. At the GOP convention we saw a succession of politicians who, during the primary, had called Mitt Romney basically “Obama-lite” come out, do a quick about face, and declare him the only man who can save America. We heard very few specifics, which is to say really no specifics beyond lowering taxes and cutting regulations. That sounds good (at least to me) but so long as we have a tax code the size of an encyclopedia it makes little difference to me who says what about taxes since only those with armies of accountants will be able to decipher the code and find the many loopholes both parties have interwoven throughout the whole complicated mess. There was not much energy at the Republican convention compared to the Democrats and it is no wonder. Mitt Romney is the living embodiment of boredom.

The only people with any zeal were the Ron Paul people who the party bosses ensured were soundly ignored after enacting a quick rule change to deprive them of their voice. I would feel more sympathy if they had not helped Romney win the primary in the first place and, I suppose, from the point of view of the GOP there is really little point in doing them any favors since they are most definitely not good, little, loyal Republicans. If Romney loses it will be interesting to see what had the bigger impact; picking a candidate who could not inspire Republicans to vote or disgruntled Ron Paul fans taking support away from the GOP ticket. Of course, the Republicans were perfectly excellent when it came to pointing out problems and listing all of the mistakes of the Obama administration but actual solutions were in very short supply. Like libertarian journalist John Stossel, I would have preferred to hear about what Romney plans to do as President rather than that his dad used to pick a flower for his mom every morning. Most of what came out of Tampa was simply, “Obama stinks but if you vote for us we’ll fix it”; even though that would require majorities in the House and Senate that I doubt Republicans have a prayer of winning.

Was there at least any entertainment value? Not as far as I was concerned. For me, the only highlight was Clint Eastwood, but I’m biased on that count having been a fan of his ever since his “spaghetti western” days. Well, we did get to see Paul Ryan give a great performance in pretending the budget Romney proposed is a great thing despite being far inferior to his own proposal but we got no verbal acrobatics from Mitt Romney in an effort to explain how he is now opposed to so many things he used to be for. He talked about his faith (a nicer-sounding word than “religion”) yet he failed to explain how, with such a deep faith and high position in his church, he managed to have such radical, and so numerous, changes on major moral issues always around election time. Funny that. He never even talked much about what one would think to be the backbone of the republican campaign; a smaller government with greater individual responsibility. No, instead it was a long list of praise for those plucky small businesses and a parade of minority-women-Republicans (See! We’re inclusive too!) and not much more. No clear plan, no specifics, just vague promises for something a little better than what we have. Yawn.

But, of course, it was excitement central at the Democrat convention in Charlotte, entertaining at least in watching them scramble to deal with one misstep after another. Thankfully Chairman Debbie was there to tell us not to believe our own eyes and ears as only someone like her can. This is the same woman who once said that Republicans wanted to ‘make it against the law to be an illegal alien’. Don’t think about that statement too much or your brain will start to bleed. They got into a little trouble with their party platform, leaving out any reference to God or Jerusalem being the capital of Israel (there were some other items but none that threatened to cause trouble with key voting blocs like these). There was a fuss brewing and Obama ordered them put back in to head off any bad press. Unfortunately, not too many were pleased with that decision and there were boos when the convention chairman took a vote and declared a majority favored the changes in spite of this obviously not being so. The Republicans pounced on it of course, and rightly so. After all, they had been clever enough to simply change the rules on everyone to avoid a scene like this while the Democrats were silly enough to actually have the delegates vote on something. Amateurs.

The Democrats, of course, accused the Republican Party of going too extreme and being dominated by the Tea Party “radicals”, which seems rather odd when the GOP candidate is someone not terribly popular with the Tea Party, someone who was Governor of a very liberal state and who had previously been okay with abortion and gay “marriage”. Mitt Romney hardly fits as a hard-line conservative. About the only thing “radical” (a good thing in my view) that happened in Tampa was calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve (don’t hold your breath for that one) and otherwise it was typical GOP business as usual. However, it was at the Democrat convention in Charlotte that the radicals on the left really did seem to have taken over. It could be called the convention of the Abortion-Birth Control-Homosexuality Party. About one third of Democrats (they say) are pro-life but one would never know it from the convention where anyone opposed to abortion, publicly funded contraceptives or legalizing gay “marriage” is clearly not welcome. About the only humorous moment was seeing Sandra the-taxpayers-need-to-buy-my-birth control-pills Fluke speaking in a primetime slot at a national convention on cable and network television to an audience of millions about how women are being “silenced”. That was a riot.

I try not to preach when it comes to my observations, but in this case I cannot help delving a bit into religion as the Democrat convention seemed to be both a really big slap across the face of the Catholic Church as well as an indication of, well, just what the state of the Catholic Church is these days I suppose. Here was a convention where, for the first time ever in the USA, gay “marriage” was made an official plank of the party platform, along with the right to abortion at any time for any reason and that taxpayer-funded birth control is a “human right”. All of these things the Catholic Church opposes (supposedly anyway). Yet we saw a parade of one Catholic after another cheering for all of these issues and for a President who was against saving the life of a child who happened to survive an abortion (so blatant infanticide in other words). In just one day there was LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (divorced, adulterer pro-abortion and gay “marriage” Catholic -his openly gay cousin John Perez also spoke but he doesn‘t claim to be Catholic anymore as far as I know), Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez (big supporter of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender” issues), union boss Richard Trumka, Congressman John Larson, Senator Patty Murray, Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (champion of the transgender crowd), former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who has actually said the Catholic Church doesn’t enforce the no-birth control rule, and I guess she’s been proven right on that one), Secretary Tom Vilsack, Senator Barbara Mikulski (who led a big cheer for “reproductive rights” at the convention), and do I need to go on? We also had Vice President Joe Biden (who beat Obama in endorsing gay “marriage”) and a pro-Obama Catholic nun.

We also had Caroline Kennedy who said that “as a Catholic woman” she supported the Democrat platform of pushing “reproductive rights” for women. Why was she there? Why does anyone care what she says? Because her daddy was President and anyone who says the United States doesn’t do royalty is living in deep denial. The first speaker was, of course, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, another pro-abortion, pro-gay “marriage” Catholic. The last to speak (though many networks cut him off) was Cardinal Archbishop Dolan of New York who gave the closing prayer, as he did at the Republican convention, calling for a greater respect for life. I admire the Cardinal for praying on such an issue in front of such a crowd but I have to scratch my head in confusion when so many Catholics promote what the Catholic Church says is wrong and that so many Catholics vote for these people. I live in a heavily Latino and heavily Catholic part of the country and it is so overwhelmingly Democrat that Republicans don’t even bother to run where I live and none of the social issues taken up by Democrats over the years have changed that. It really starts to look like the Catholic Church doesn’t care as much as it claims to or a whole bunch of Catholic politicians would be excommunicated -and don’t tell me the Church doesn’t do that because the Church excommunicated more than one southern politician for opposing de-segregation. Of course, if I’m missing something, feel free to let me know.

We did get to see all the old favorites. President Jimmy-the source of all problems with Iran-Carter, President Bill Clinton and finally President Barrack Obama who rightfully chided Republicans for giving no specifics and then proceeded to give none of his own. In fact, he gave fewer specifics than he did the last time which is probably because he failed to deliver on any of the promises he made back then regarding certain goals. He did learn one thing in office it seems. People don’t like it when you don’t keep your promises so -just stop making promises! Simple enough. He accused the GOP of having no new ideas, just the mantra of “lower taxes and cut regulations” while repeating the worn and weary liberal mantra of “higher taxes and more regulations”. Because that is what it all comes down to for the Dems; there is no problem that cannot be solved by throwing money at it and putting the government in charge of it. Romney hid from his record, Obama just lied about his. And to all of you people living in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and so on…this is how Presidents are made folks. By collections of professional liars in huge conventions where party bosses work to thwart the will of their own delegates. And despite all the talk of “hope and change”, trust me, you can NEVER change it. Just ask Ralph Nader or Ron Paul. It is a disgusting, disheartening process and while I don’t doubt that between Obama and Romney one would certainly be the worse of the two, I still think the country will lose no matter who wins. I look at the two of them, their parties and all I can think is “you just don’t get it”. And they don’t, because the people don’t either. My oh my is politics depressing…

Mad Analysis: What Does "Tolerance" Mean?

It must be election time in the United States because moral values so many people couldn’t care less about one way or the other are again at center stage. The latest involves the owner of a restaurant chain who said he supports traditional marriage and opposes “gay marriage”. He was immediately branded an intolerant bigot and the mayors of Chicago, Boston and San Francisco said his business will no longer be welcome in their cities because the owner does not share their “values”. So, the narrative today is very simple; if you oppose gay “marriage” you’re a bigoted homophobe, “intolerant” and that’s all there is to it. So, even if you do no harm to a person, even if you do not slander or threaten a person but if you simply disagree with a person that now makes you “intolerant”? Yes, and even worse today it seems. I really cannot understand it. When did “tolerance” come to mean never saying or doing anything that might cause offense or hurt feelings?

The whole nature of this argument frankly baffles me. By long established tradition “marriage” is defined as the permanent union of one man and one woman. Now, a vocal minority wants to change that definition and when anyone complains about that or voices opposition the retort is that you are being discriminatory by not treating them just like everyone else. What? I’m confused. Of course they are being treated different than everyone else because their behavior is different from that of everyone else. If they were behaving just like everyone else there would be no reason to change the definition in the first place. The vast majority of humanity is heterosexual, if it wasn’t we would have died out a long time ago. Homosexuals are something different and I fail to see how they can legitimately complain about not being treated like everyone else while at the same time demanding that rules, traditions and the meaning of words be changed in order to accommodate their differences. They say they want “tolerance” and that those who oppose them are being “intolerant” but I don’t think they understand the meaning of the word.

Does this name-calling annoy me? You bet it does but only because I would rather not even have to deal with this subject at all. This is why it infuriates me to be called a bigot and a hatemonger and a homophobe in these arguments -because I don’t want to know who is or is not a homosexual in the first place! It would be pretty hard for me to be prejudiced against a homosexual if I had no idea that person was a homosexual and frankly I would prefer it that way. It makes me feel a little persecuted myself that I am not allowed to remain blissfully ignorant about the sexual habits of others. I am a big believer in privacy. What people do in their own homes is their own business. I don’t want to control it, I don’t even want to know about it. I don’t care, don’t know and don’t want to know who is doing what with whom. I really don’t! Yet, I, and the rest of the public along with me, are being forced to address these issues -and I don’t like it. I don’t like having to deal with it and I certainly don’t like being portrayed as the “bad guy” by people to whom I have done absolutely no harm. That seems utterly idiotic to me.

I am not and I am not for forcing anyone to do anything in their private lives; in their home lives. I’m also not very impressed with any law that is practically impossible to enforce as any law regulating consensual sexual behavior would be. In my life I have known quite a few people who were unusual or outside the mainstream but I was always told, since I was very small, that what people do on their own place is their own business and no one else’s. As far as I’m concerned they can do what they want with who they want and call it what they want and it’s none of my business. How can I be the “intolerant” one when I have not harmed or restricted anyone in anyway and would prefer to know nothing about what other people do in the first place? Yet, I am and it all comes down to a single issue these days: gay “marriage” and that, at its core, boils down to one simple, pertinent point: approval. Ultimately, that is it and ultimately that is why I think it is absurd and ridiculous and grossly unjust for the advocates of this to portray me and people like me as “intolerant”. They’re not looking for tolerance, they’re looking for approval.

I don’t even understand how opposing gay “marriage” could really be homophobic. To me, that would only make sense if the law said that two homosexual men could not get married but two heterosexual men could, which it doesn’t because that would be silly. In any event, some want their relationships to have the same legal status as that of other legally married people. Why? You don’t need the government to make a commitment to someone and you don’t need the government to give you a license to behave as you please in your own home. The only reason I can see is that these people want government recognition, sanction and effectively the “blessing” of the government of this country which rules on behalf of “we the people”. And that is where I am forced to get involved -forced- in something I have no desire to. By my vote and by my words they want me, through my government and personally if they ever met me, to say what they’re doing is okay. That is what it comes down to. They don’t just want me to let them do it, they want me, through our representative government, to officially and publicly approve of them doing it. I cannot. I will not.

I do not think this is being “intolerant”. I do not think this is being bigoted or prejudiced. There is plenty in the world I tolerate but I do not and do not have to approve of any of it. What frustrates me is that I cannot for the life of me understand why so many seem to want or need my approval in the first place. The advocates of this change intrude on my blissful ignorance about the private lives of others, stick their actions and desires in my face and demand that I approve of it. When I disapprove, after being forced to make the decision, they call me a bigot! If you find it “offensive” that I disapprove of your behavior, don’t expect any sympathy from me since I never asked you to seek my approval in the first place. I am far from the best person to consult on any matter concerning marriage. I am a confirmed bachelor who wouldn’t get married if you paid me. If I ever get the urge I will simply stop a random stranger, ask them to kick me as hard as they can and then take all my money. It would still save me a lot of time and aggravation. Because of this, some probably think I am not even entitled to an opinion on this subject. Well, I think I do since, certainly with no prompting on my part, the advocates of this change asked me to approve of their actions! They not only “asked” me for my opinion, they demanded it!

Whenever I dwell on this subject I cannot help but think of a scene in “A Man for All Seasons” in which the soon-to-be-condemned Thomas More says that he does none harm, he speaks none harm and he thinks none harm and if this is not enough to keep him alive then he longs not to live. When it comes to the gay and pro-gay community, if the fact that I do not and have no desire to tell them how to live their lives, that I do not harm them and that I have neither the power nor the inclination to force them to stop doing anything they choose is not enough to keep me from being called a bigot and intolerant -I cannot regard such people as any sort of victims or any sort of oppressed class. If the only way these people will refrain from slandering me and my religion is for me to publicly approve of their actions and call what they do something I do not believe it is, sorry, there is intolerance on display -and it ain’t coming from me. Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance and calling people names when they will not conform to your way of thinking is the exact opposite of being “tolerant”. I'm sick of it and I'm not going to put up with it anymore. I hereby declare myself entitled to ignore anyone who uses such tactics.

Mad Analysis: The Olympics

It is time for the Olympics again and it is starting to feel like a tradition for me that every time they roll around I find something to get really upset about. Let me say at the outset that, unlike some very fine people with whom I am usually in agreement, I do not dislike the Olympics. In fact, it’s about the only thing “international” that I don’t dislike. I love the countries of the world coming together in non-violent competition, I love pulling for my favorites, I love the determination and great athletic skill on display. There are so many moments that are so emotional I fail to see how anyone could not be moved by them. For example, wrestler Carol Huynh winning the gold medal in Beijing, seeing her with tears rolling down her face as the whole crowd sings “O Canada”. I defy anyone not to be moved by that. Another was Mary Lou Retton in 1984 scoring a perfect 10, twice, to win the gold medal. I don’t know much about the judging of vaulting or gymnastics in general but I do know that a perfect score in any event is almost unheard of. And of course, for Americans anyway, beating the Soviet hockey team at Lake Placid in 1980 would be pretty hard to top as far as emotional moments go. For monarchists there has also been a long history of royal involvement in the Olympics with many royals serving on the International Olympic Committee. Many have even participated. Today we even have the example of Monaco in which both the reigning monarch and the consort are former Olympians themselves. I love the Olympics.

Something else I love is the United Kingdom. I have good reason to. I speak English, I have ancestors buried all over Great Britain and Ireland, I studied British literature at university, I love the British monarchy, the British Empire, those great old British values of hard work, determination, ambition and stoic courage. I love the culture, I admire the great heroes of British history and the whole, long British story. The United Kingdom has a matchless record amongst the countries of the world and one that every Briton should be justifiably proud of. All that being said, as I watched the opening ceremonies on Friday night, I’m sorry, but I thought it was horrible. I kept waiting for it to get better and it only seemed to get worse and worse. There was very little about that whole ‘performance’ I could even recognize as British. I began to wonder just how out of touch I am with the mainstream of the land of so many of my forefathers. Is this how the British think of themselves? Was that display an example of what defines the modern United Kingdom? Grubby faced laborers, suffragettes, storybook villains, socialized healthcare and clips from sitcoms (some of which were American)? No bold explorers, no Sir Walter Raleigh, Lord Nelson or Captain Cook but Harry Potter, Mr. Bean and the NHS? Really? And, by the way, I have nothing against Mr. Bean, he’s very funny, but is a comedic daydream of cheating in a foot race the best way to open the Olympic games? And I really didn’t understand at all the little episode with the young couple and the salute to pop music. Were they even supposed to be British? Am I terrible person for wondering?

I cannot, of course, fail to mention the Queen. When the announcer said the ‘royal arrival’ was next, I thought, ‘finally, we will get some class in this thing’. It started out well enough. 007, James Bond, going to Buckingham Palace. That was okay, and I thought, ‘that’s neat, 007 is going to escort the Queen, that’s sort of fun and cool’. Then it was a helicopter instead of a car. Okay, fine, no reason to panic. Then the statue of Sir Winston came to life and we officially entered tactlessly silly territory. Then, of course, came the fake skydive into the stadium. To those who were impressed, I’m sorry, that just seemed ridiculous to the point of disrespectful to me. And after that time when some of what I considered the most tasteless parts of the show came up, I kept thinking, ‘I can’t believe they’re showing this sort of trash in front of the Queen!’ Yes, they suckered me in at the beginning with Kenneth quoting Shakespeare and before it was over they seemed to be on a mission to remind me of everything I like least about the British Isles these days. And please, please, can someone tell me if Sir Paul is the only celebrity on retainer for these sorts of things? I never disliked the man but I am really getting tired of him. At every single major event in the U.K. it seems that Paul is always the main star. Is it just because he’s the oldest surviving British celebrity these days or is there something I’m missing?

What was I expecting? I can’t say exactly but maybe something with Irish dancers, Welsh choirs, some Scottish highlanders, something English in the Tudor era fashion, maybe a nod to the navigators who sailed forth from the shores of Britain to plant the seeds from which sprung the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on. Of course celebrating the legacy of the British Empire would never be tolerated but when I think of celebrating the best of what it means to be British, British culture and so on, I don’t immediately think of commemorating the industrial revolution in interpretive dance following by a salute to the National Health Service, 70’s disco dancing and clips from The Cosby Show. To everyone who was impressed and enthralled by it all, I do apologize for being blunt. I hope I don’t receive the Romney treatment but in the opinion of this viewer, I can hardly come up with anything positive to say. I don’t get it. To me, it seemed awful. Just awful. Yes, the industrial revolution was a hugely important event in history and Britain led the way in that, but do you really want huge belching smokestacks as part of the opening ceremony of the Olympics? And why was Mohammed Ali there? Seriously, to me, that just seemed embarrassing. Let the man be and have his privacy and stop using him for a living history exhibit.

Of course, every time the Olympics comes up it seems that someone pulls something in an effort to annoy me anyway. This year it got off to a sure-to-be-controversial start with the Greek Olympic Committee banning from their team the triple jumper. Let the hate mail flow, but I thought that was stupid. Athletic competition is supposed to be about performance, not political opinions or how ignorant your sense of humor is. I never like to see people or nations banned from the Olympics because it highlights those who are not banned. For example, Rhodesia and South Africa were banned from competition because their teams were segregated by race. Yet, not only were athletes not banned but Olympic games themselves have been hosted by the likes of Nazi Germany, Communist China and the Soviet Union. I don’t know what kind of girl this Greek athlete is but kicking her off the team for being beyond the pale of political correctness seemed all the more odd to me as I watched the parade of nations and saw the flags of Cuba, Red China and North Korea being proudly carried in. If you can’t be consistent in drawing the line, just don’t pick up the marker in the first place. Don’t ban anyone I say, just beat them on the field of competition. It won’t happen of course, but that put a sour taste in my mouth from the very start.

Nonetheless, as I said, I still like the Olympics, I will put aside all of that mess and watch and enjoy the games, focusing on the athletes who have worked so hard to get where they are today. Despite all my problems with what goes on at the Olympics, I still think that is a lesson worth showcasing: hard work, discipline and determination pays off. Just don’t try to be funny. And here’s hoping the closing ceremonies will be done with a little more class than the opening show. Okay, feel free to tell me how totally wrong I am and what a great show it was, I am prepared…

Mad Analysis: Individual Responsibility

The big news in America this week is certainly the mass-shooting in Aurora, Colorado. I assume everyone has heard about the horror of it, the victims and the accused murderer. Of course, all of our sympathy goes to the victims and their families but, saying that, I get a slightly sick feeling whenever I heard media people expressing their sympathy for the victims they interview on TV. It really bothered me hearing Diane Sawyer saying “we embrace you” to the mother of a murdered daughter. I’m sure they are sincerely sorry for these people but, realistically, by next week they won’t remember the names of any of these people, the next big story will come along and so it goes. That’s not really important right now, it’s just something that bothers me a little bit. I don’t want to accuse anyone of anything but it seems just a little bit too much like exploiting grief to me. In any event, not even one hour had elapsed since I first heard this on the news before the blame game started.

Not even one hour had passed before I started to hear the ‘talking heads’ bring up the need for stricter gun control, added security at theaters, questions about how the alleged killer was raised, questions about whether the movie itself was related to the murders (and why the alleged killer referred to himself as “the Joker” (it was a Batman movie if you haven’t heard]) and if the film industry bears any blame for what happened. This really annoys me. More than that, it disgusts me because it seems to relate to what I think is one of the most devastating root problems that exists today. What happened in Colorado is the fault of NO ONE but the one who pulled the trigger. That’s it and that’s all. Anything else takes away from the one and only person who should bear all the guilt for this tragedy. Stop harassing his parents, stop harassing his old professors and stop trying to blame Hollywood. Some people are just evil and some relatively good people just snap one day and do horrible things. No law can ever or will ever prevent that from happening.

This irritates me especially because it is proof again of just how little individual responsibility is left in modern society. How many years ago now was the Genovese case? Have things gotten any better? I don’t doubt that things may come out that might help explain somewhat why this person did what he is alleged to have done but I don’t want anything to in any way take away from his own personal responsibility for the horrible crime he committed. I don’t like the way his father was hounded from his home to the airport on his way to Colorado. It’s not his dad’s fault that he did what he did. I don’t care if he had the world’s greatest dad or the world’s worst -he was a grown adult who made his own decision and one of those decisions was to gun down tens of innocent people. The guilty party is the guilty party and there the list should end. I really have no patience for the whole ‘the movie made me do it’ or ‘society made me do it’ or ‘the music made me do it’ or ‘the video game made me do it’ or ‘my overbearing parents made me do it’ or any of the other of countless excuses that always come out at times like this.

I still want everyone to know that I am certainly under no illusions as to the effect that the media and the entertainment industry has on society. I like some pretty violent and horrifying movies myself, but there are some that even I think cross a line. There are at least a few that I’ve simply heard about that I am convinced would destroy the soul of anyone who watches them. I’ve never been in favor of censorship in my life but, in recent years, I have had to change that position because of some very extreme cases. We should endeavor to have a healthy society after all. What we cannot do is blame the actions of one person on anyone else or in any way lessen their guilt and individual responsibility by trying to make the responsibility shared. If I do wrong there is no one to blame but myself. I do the crime, I do the time. Likewise, if I make a dumb decision, no one should be forced to help me out of a mess caused by my own stupidity. I shouldn’t have to bail you out for your mistakes either. If you have friends or family that want to help you out, fine, but you cannot blame me for your mistakes which is what you are doing if I am forced to help you out of them.

No one seems to have any grasp at all of individual responsibility these days. Even among those one would think would be the greatest champions of it, we do not have unanimity. There are relatively few in this day and age who champion individual “rights” but there are fewer still who stand up for individual responsibility. Everyone wants the “rights” but not many seem to want the responsibility. For example, why do so many libertarians and (all) Objectivists/Randists support abortion? They say it is because they support individual “rights” and individual choice but it seems to me that by supporting abortion you are supporting individual irresponsibility. Being stupid and getting pregnant are individual choices but getting an abortion is just a medical way of escaping the responsibility of your own actions and choices you already made. One side of the political spectrum tends to throw all individualism out the window but even on the other side of the scale, everyone seems to want to have their cake and eat it too. No one wants to be responsible for their own actions and these days we seem less and less forced to do so.

For example, just take the film everyone was seeing at this theater where the tragic mass-murder took place. Notice how many young children were among the victims? Some were extremely young. What were they even doing there? Personally, I was shocked to find out the movie was rated PG-13 and even more shocked when I looked it up and found that the previous “Dark Knight” movie was also PG-13. Aside from the original movie with Adam West (my first Batman), I don’t think any of the Batman movies have been suitable for small children. If I had children, I wouldn’t let them watch stuff like that at such a young age. But, of course, how many parents are simply willing to abdicate their responsibility to the MPAA to determine if something is okay for their children to watch? I don’t think I’m being too extreme when I say that I think we should each be responsible for what we do. I don’t think we should we are all responsible for everything and I don’t think we are all responsible for nothing. I don’t think we should be called upon to be responsible for or care about everyone but we should at least care about how family and those immediately around us. That’s all.