Reflections  

Mr. Saigon — At the well-choreographed Democratic nominating convention and in much of his advertising since, John Kerry has taken great pains to portray himself as a Vietnam war hero. Yet he objects every time anyone mentions his war record in a way that is less than favorable. A remarkable strategy: as the centerpiece of his campaign he has painted a self-flattering portrait as war hero, but only those who present an equally flattering portrait of his war record should be permitted to comment about it. He's the painter, he's the subject, he's the controller of all criticism. One question remains: who's supposed to be the audience? — R.W. Bradford

Pigskin, pot, and piss cups — Former NFL running back Bam Morris has been released after nearly five years in federal and state prisons, following convictions for marijuana possession and trafficking.

In 1996, Morris was Super Bowl XXX's top rusher. As the Houston Chronicle reported, "Two months later, he was busted for the first time, and his career began to unravel with one incident after another." Yet in his six years in the NFL, Morris scored 35 touchdowns and gained an average of 3.5 yards per rushing attempt. It seems the drug laws hurt him far more than the drugs.

Meanwhile, Miami Dolphins running back Ricky Williams recently retired. He admits to regular marijuana use throughout his career. Williams now wishes to enjoy his life and fortune, without having to evade NFL drug testing.

I would like to see Williams visit schools and reveal to the children that the government is lying to them about the putative harm from marijuana use. But someone who speaks the truth surely will not be permitted on campus. — Thomas Giesberg

Saddam's crime — The legal proceedings by the American puppet government in Iraq against former president Saddam Hussein raise the interesting question of what might happen to Saddam in a genuinely independent Iraq. No doubt the former U.S. protégé would still go on trial, but the counts would be somewhat differently worded.

The main indictment against Saddam would have to be that, as leader of Iraq, he failed to develop weapons of mass destruction, and in an incredible act of folly destroyed even those he had been given earlier by the United States, thereby inviting the horrendous butchery of the American attack followed by the interminable mayhem and obscene brutality of the occupation.

The clear lesson of the invasion of Iraq, to all countries that might be a target for American violence — and that is almost anyone, almost anywhere — is to develop, as rapidly as possible, viable and credible weapons of mass destruction. North Korea prudently did develop such weapons. As a result, it's extremely unlikely that the United States will attack North Korea. Had North Korea failed to take this precaution, it's quite certain that the United States would have unleashed its trademark "shock and awe" against the population: terror bombing and mass murder, followed by occupation, more mass murder, rape, torture, and humiliation of the inhabitants, followed by further years or decades of interminable mass murder and appalling brutality.

The United States chooses only victims it believes to be helpless. It cares not a jot for untold thousands of foreign deaths, but cherishes each of its own soldiers like a Fabergé egg. After years of propping up the inefficient Saddam Hussein and feeding him weapons of mass destruction, the United States switched to economic sanctions accompanied by almost daily bombing. Following twelve years of this softening up, the U.S. rulers believed that the Iraqi population was helpless. Although it turns out that this was a miscalculation, and the United States is now being defeated by the Iraqi resistance, actual possession by the Iraqi government of weapons of mass destruction would very likely have deterred the American attack. Instead, Saddam thought he could appease the aggressor, and unilaterally disarmed. Dozens of governments around the world must now be giving higher priority to their WMD programs.

The United States spends more on its military than the next 25 biggest-spending nations combined. The United States alone has the power — in this brief window in history — to run amok all over the world, killing and maiming according to whim. Sadly, it also has the aptitude and the inclination.

It is pleasant to imagine that public opinion inside the United States might one day demand repentance from this appalling evil, conversion to non-interventionism and peaceable international dealings, and execution of the Bush cabinet for their unspeakable crimes.

The actual outcome will no doubt be different. Nearly all the major world powers other than the U.S. will combine to form a military alliance for the containment of the United States: at least three of Europe, China, Russia, and India will lead this alliance. One will perhaps serve its self-interest best by becoming the stooge of the American serial aggressor; this stooge could be any of the four, but will most likely be China, where the government is least responsive to popular sentiment.

Even a world of jostling, predatory nation-states is not so collectively irresponsible that it can tolerate a chronic situation where one power is able and willing to wreak mass slaughter anywhere on Earth, at its merest whim. The future emergence of the Alliance to Contain America is by no means entirely beneficial. I don't look forward to it with eager anticipation. It will have many unfortunate, perhaps terrible, side effects. But it is now inevitable. — David Ramsay Steele

Butcher than thou — Feminist author Barbara Ehrenreich, at a rally during the Democratic convention, said, "I feel so exasperated that they [Kerry and Edwards] can't figure out anything except to try to act butcher than [George W. Bush] when it comes to our international crises." She thinks the key to defeating terrorism is exporting feminism. No, not feminists, but feminism — Alan W. Bock

The liberation of Poletown — The Michigan Supreme Court, in a significant victory for property rights, has reversed Poletown, a landmark eminent domain decision that allowed a massive government taking of property to make way for a General Motors assembly plant in Detroit during the 198182 recession. The case (discussed in my article in the November 2003 Liberty) led to the government condemnation and destruction of 1,400 homes, 144 businesses, and 16 churches in the Poletown neighborhood on Detroit's Lower East Side. The victims of this aggression were Poletown's poor and elderly residents. The reversal is a defeat for all governments that have relied on Poletown to justify their own taking of property from the weak to benefit politically connected corporations, developers, and other commercial interests.

Poletown, originally decided by the Court in 1981, was struck down in another eminent domain case brought by Wayne County, Mich., against private property owners. The county sought to use eminent domain to condemn the property so it could build a development for commercial interests. The Court, in a unanimous (70) ruling, found: "To justify the exercise of eminent domain solely on the basis of the fact that the use of that property by a private entity seeking its own profit might contribute to the economy's health is to render impotent our constitutional limitations on the government's power of eminent domain. Poletown's 'economic benefit' rationale would validate practically any exercise of the power of eminent domain on behalf of a private entity. After all, if one's ownership of private property is forever subject to the government's determination that another private party would put one's land to better use, then the ownership of real property is perpetually threatened by the expansion plans of any large discount retailer, 'megastore,' or the like."

The Court noted: "Because Poletown's conception of a public use — that of 'alleviating unemployment and revitalizing the economic base of the community' — has no support in the Court's eminent domain jurisprudence before the Constitution's ratification, its interpretation of 'public use' . . . cannot reflect the common understanding of that phrase. . . . Consequently, the Poletown analysis provides no legitimate support for the condemnation proposed in this case and, for the reasons stated above, is overruled."

Thus, the Court sided with property owners fighting government action in 2004 by overturning a decision it made nearly a quarter century ago: "Because Poletown itself was such a radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles and over a century of this Court's eminent domain jurisprudence leading up to the 1963 Constitution, we must overrule Poletown in order to vindicate our Constitution, protect the people's property rights, and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor — not creator — of fundamental law."

The Court also applied its ruling to other eminent domain cases: "Our decision to overrule Poletown should have retroactive effect, applying to all pending cases in which a challenge to Poletown has been raised and preserved."

This is a sweeping victory for property rights, with implications for property owners in Michigan and other states fighting government seizure of their property. Governments across the United States have cited Poletown to justify their own takings of private property. They will no longer be able to rely on Poletown now that Michigan's highest Court has reversed its original decision. — Greg Kaza

Let's go all the way — The controversy over the Federal Marriage Amendment has given rise to a discussion dominated by two equally ridiculous claims.

Conservatives argue that marriage is a sacred institution which, if not reserved by constitutional amendment for one man and one woman, will be stripped of its power and meaning, leading to a (more) degenerate society.

Left-liberals have a couple of primary factions, one that supports gay marriage (but not polyamorous or intrafamilial marriage!) and one that sort of agrees with conservatives, but doesn't want to be painted as conservative.

It's time for bold solutions to this moral crisis, and I've got one. Left and Right should come together (so to speak) in support of sex licenses.

Sex licenses would solve most problems that marriage licenses are meant to solve. Marriage is a stable and civilizing influence, giving young people one person from whom it's socially acceptable to get as much nookie as they want. Marriage theoretically promotes monogamy and discourages promiscuity, thus encouraging loyalty to one's spouse. Marriage provides a family for children to be raised in; sex licenses are sort of a supply-side approach to the same problem.

The conservatives and modern liberals having this debate are all authoritarians of one type or another. They think it's the state's business to license marriage, and they're okay with prohibition of prostitution, so they shouldn't be bothered by this sensible expansion of the state's regulation of sex. Unlike laws that discriminate against homosexuals, this one will have no equal-protection problems. Gay, straight, doesn't matter — nobody gets laid without the state's say-so!

I envision a photographic identification document, like your driver's license. There would be restrictions ("A" for heart patients who may not use Viagra, "B" for people with chronic venereal disease) and endorsements ("good in bed," "sterilized," "total babe").

Most states let teenagers get a learner's permit a few months before they're eligible to get their "real" driver's license. During this probationary phase, they can drive as long as there is a licensed driver in the car with them. I'm sure there's a role for a learner's sex permit: you can do anything up to second base, but only with a fully licensed individual present.

The vagaries of federalism would give us an exciting array of licenses. California and New York would have colorful, good-looking plastic cards emblazoned with the words "Sex License," while certain states in the Midwest and the South would issue their citizens an understated, easy-to-forge laminated piece of paper called a "Permit for Conjugal Relations." I'll bet the pictures on progressive states' licenses would give a whole new meaning to "head shot."

Sex licenses would encourage young people to practice safer sex. In many states, if a cop pulls you over for speeding and you don't have your seat belt on when he arrives at your car window, he can ticket you. Similarly, a cop who caught you having a quickie in the back seat of a car could tack another costly violation on top of public indecency: "I don't see a helmet on that solider, Jimmy. That's an $80 ticket!"

Sex is a privilege, not a right. We need responsible coitus control. Do it for the children. Just don't do it with the children — that'll still be illegal. — Patrick Quealy

The war to start more wars — As with so many famous lines, the phrase "war to end all wars" was apparently never uttered by the man to whom it's attributed, Woodrow Wilson. In "Breaking The Heart of The World" (2001), author John Milton Cooper says the phrase originated with Lloyd George. But in fact, the phrase appears to have originated with H.G. Wells, who used it in his 1918 book "In The Fourth Year: Anticipations of a World Peace," where he writes, "In the latter half of 1914 [a] phrase, 'The War to end War,' got into circulation, amidst much sceptical comment. It was a phrase powerful enough to sway many men, essentially pacifists, towards taking an active part in the war against German imperialism, but it was a phrase whose chief content was its aspiration. While we talked of this 'war to end war,' the diplomatists of the Powers allied against Germany were . . . seeing in the treacherous violence of Germany only the justification for countervailing evil acts. To them it was only another war for 'ascendancy. . . .' In those days, moreover, we said this is the 'war to end war,' and we still did not know clearly how. . . . It is largely the detachment and practical genius of the great English-speaking nation across the Atlantic that has carried the world on beyond and replaced that phrase by the phrase, 'The League of Nations,' a phrase suggesting plainly the organization of a sufficient instrument by which war may be ended for ever." He used the phrase again in his book "The Shape of Things to Come" (1933), but in a 1934 article, Wells acknowledged that the phrase which "got into circulation" in 1914 was actually his own creation. This, however, didn't stop him from using the phrase again as if it weren't artificial, in "The New World Order" (1939). — Timothy Sandefur

© Copyright 2008, Liberty Foundation

Send editorial comments to letters@libertyunbound.com.
All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.

Send web site comments to webmaster@libertyunbound.com.